Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manju Gandharv vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1955) on 9 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:1955]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 65/2025
1. Manju Gandharv W/o Sh. Shravan Kumar @ Tarun, Aged
About 52 Years, R/o Amer Nagar, Mullatlai, Ps Ambamata
Dist. Udaipur.
2. Prabhulal Nagarchi S/o Kalulal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Amer Nagar, Mullatlai, Ps Ambamata Dist. Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Pramod Chhaparwal S/o Lt. Sh. Nanalal Chhaparwal, R/o
Hotal Saheli Palace, Ps Hathipole, Dist. Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Shaitan Singh Bargurjar
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shriram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
09/01/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under
Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of the entire proceeding pending in
the Court of learned Addtional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal
Case No.9686/2014, arising out of FIR No.64/2004 registered at
Police Station Hathipole, District Udaipur for the offences under
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, on the ground of
compromise.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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
[2025:RJ-JD:1955] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-65/2025]
peace. It is further submitted that both the parties 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 petitioners
that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioners for the
offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC,
however, the learned trial court has attested the compromise for
the offence under Section 420 of IPC but kept the proceeding
pending by it for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and
120-B of IPC as the same is not compoundable. 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 petitioners 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. It is emanating from the order-sheets of the learned trial
court that the 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 AGA has opposed the petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record more particularly the nature of
allegation and the order-sheets of the learned trial court, wherein
[2025:RJ-JD:1955] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-65/2025]
the factum of compromise has been averred. 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 Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303 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 the FIR and all other subsequent
proceedings initiated thereto.
[2025:RJ-JD:1955] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-65/2025]
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 petitioners 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 Addtional Chief
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur in Criminal Case No.9686/2014
arising out of FIR No.64/2004 registered at Police Station
Hathipole, District Udaipur are hereby quashed and set aside.
11. The accused petitioners are acquitted from the charges and
their bail bonds are discharged.
12. The stay petition is disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.73
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
