Sita Ram S/O Shri Dharm Pal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:37801)
2024 Latest Caselaw 5734 Raj/2

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 5734 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 6 September, 2024

Rajasthan High Court

Sita Ram S/O Shri Dharm Pal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:37801) on 6 September, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:37801]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5794/2024

1.       Sita Ram S/o Shri Dharm Pal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
         Bajawa Suro Ka, Bajawa, Jhunjhunu 333025.
2.       Deepak Kumar Meena S/o Shri Manohar Lal, R/o Motor
         Market, Malhar Hotel, Ward No. 17, Sardarshahar, District
         Churu-331403.
3.       Vikas Kumar Meena S/o Shri Jagmal Meena, Aged About
         21 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Signor, Jhunjhunu 333032.
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

2. Punit Kumar Mahala S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Mahala, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Gram Navaldi, Tehsil Navalgarh, District Churu.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Dutt Sharma For State : Mr. M. S. Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP For Complainant : Mr. Manish Kumar Meena

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 06/09/2024

1. This petition under Section 528 of BNSS is filed, with a

prayer to quash the FIR No. 314/2024 registered at Police Station

Kotwali District Sikar for offences under Sections 365 of IPC, on

the basis of compromise effectuated between the parties herein,

in respect of their inter-se dispute.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

said FIR was made to be registered in fit of rage on account of

ongoing love-relation between Sumit Kumar Mahala

(Complainant's brother) and Ritika Meena (now Sumit Kumar's

wife). It is submitted that as on date Sumit Kumar Mahala and

Ritika Meena are legally-married and have decided to put a

quietus to the ongoing proceedings.

[2024:RJ-JP:37801] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-5794/2024]

2. Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that the

dispute at hand is inter-se private in nature, which has been

resolved by the parties amicably.

3. Heard and considered.

4. At the outset, this Court deems it appropriate to place

reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and

Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in

[2022 (14) SCC 531], relevant portion of which is reproduced

below:

"12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non- compoundable."

5. In view of the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in aforementioned case, and considering the personal nature

of dispute, which has been amicably settled between parties, this

Court deems it just and proper to allow the present misc. petition.

Compromise is taken on record.

6. Considering the aforementioned, the present criminal

miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR No. 314/2024

registered at Police Station Kotwali District Sikar with all

consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.

7. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Pending

application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /25