Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naveen Parakh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:3647) on 20 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:3647]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8534/2024
Naveen Parakh S/o Sh. Poonamchand Parakh, Aged About 49
Years, R/o 85, Dharam Narain Ji Ka Hatha, Paota, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Ranchod Ram S/o Sh. Bhawaji, R/o Village Aakoli, PS
Bagra, Dist. Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Sisodia, Sr. Advocate asst.
by Mr. Deepesh Birla
Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
For Complainant : Mr. Prashant Tatia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/01/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under
Section 482 Cr.PC on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of
the entire proceeding pending against him in the Court of
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jalore
(hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Case
No.437/2022, arising out of FIR No.82/2018 registered at
Police Station Bagra, District Jalore for the offence under
Sections 279 and 304-A 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
have settled their disputes through amicable settlement, for
[2025:RJ-JD:3647] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-8534/2024]
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 challan has been filed against the petitioner for the
offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC as well as
Sections 3, 180, 146 and 196 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
however, the learned trial court has attested the compromise
for the offence under Section 279 and 304-A of the IPC of
IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence
under Sections 279 and 304-A of the 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 deceased
complainant-respondent No.2 submits that Puni Devi wife of
deceased complainant respondent No.2 entered into
compromise in the capacity of his legal heir before the trial
Court and further submits that she is willing if the FIR and
the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise
entered in between the parties.
[2025:RJ-JD:3647] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-8534/2024]
6. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has opposed the
petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record more particularly the police
report, nature of allegation and the compromise deed
executed in between 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
[2025:RJ-JD:3647] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-8534/2024]
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.
9. Here in this case, though some of the offences are not
compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute
amicably, the legal heir of the complainant-respondent No.2
does 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 Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jalore in Case No.437/2022
arising out of FIR No.82/2018 registered at Police Station
Bagra, District Jalore 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
53-Ashutosh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
