Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikram Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:297) on 3 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:297]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8681/2024
Vikram Singh S/o Mangu Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bithu,
P.S. Rohat, Dist. Pali, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Rekha Kanwar W/o Vikram Singh, R/o Bithu, P.S. Rohet,
Dist. Pali, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sriram Choudhary, Addl.G.A.
For Complainant : Mr. Dilip Singh Baghela
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
03/01/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under
Section 482 Cr.PC/528 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner for
quashing of the entire proceeding pending against him in the
Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali (hereinafter to
be referred as 'the trial court') in regular case
No.1546/2022, arising out of FIR No.128/2022 registered at
Police Station Rohat, District Pali for the offences under
Sections 498A, 323 and 341 of the IPC, on the ground of
compromise.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute in
this matter is inter se between the parties which does not
affect the societal interest or anyway disturb the tranquility
or public peace. It is further submitted that both the parties
[2025:RJ-JD:297] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-8681/2024]
have settled their disputes through amicable settlement, for
which a compromise-deed has been executed and submitted
before the learned trial court.
3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the
offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 341 of the IPC,
however, the learned trial court has attested the compromise
for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC of
IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offences
under Section 498-A of IPC as the same is not compoundable
and kept the proceeding pending by it. It is submitted that
as the parties have entered into compromise, there remains
no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish
to continue the criminal proceedings further.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case
of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10
SCC 303.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
complainant-respondent No.2 admits the fact of compromise
and submits that the complainant-respondent No.2 is willing
if the FIR and the proceedings are quashed on the basis of
compromise entered in between the parties.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record more particularly nature of
allegation and the compromise deed executed in between
[2025:RJ-JD:297] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-8681/2024]
the parties. The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute
amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal
proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the
same.
8. Some of the offences alleged in this matter are
non-compoundable, however, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Gian Singh (supra) has propounded that if it is
convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and
do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it
feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of
compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends
of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the
same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is
observed that in such cases, the prosecution becomes a
lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution
would be a waste of time and energy that will also unsettle
the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. This court
is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court and feels that where the dispute is
essentially inter se between the parties, either they are
relatives, neighbours or having business relationship and
which does not affect the society at large, then in such
cases, with a view to maintain harmonious relationships
between the two sides, to end-up the dispute in between
them permanently as well as for restitution of relationship,
the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash
[2025:RJ-JD:297] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-8681/2024]
the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings initiated
thereto.
9. Here in this case, though some of the offences are not
compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute
amicably, the complainant-respondent No.2 do not wish to
continue the proceedings against the petitioner and, that is
essentially in between the parties, which is not affecting
public peace and tranquility, therefore, with a view to
maintain the harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in
between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the
FIR and the entire proceedings undertaken in pursuance
thereof.
10. Accordingly the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed. The
entire proceeding pending in the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Pali in regular case No.1546/2022 arising
out of FIR No.128/2022 registered at Police Station Rohat,
District Pali are hereby quashed and set aside.
11. The accused petitioner is acquitted from the charges and if
he is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.
12. The stay petition is disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
49-Ashutosh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
