Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Thakar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:4445) on 21 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:4445]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 474/2025
1. Thakar Ram S/o Sadularam, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 7
Mld, Teh. Gharsana, Dist. Sriganganagar.
2. Fouja Singh S/o Gurnam Singh, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
7 Mld, Teh. Gharsana, Dist. Sriganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Dhaka Devi W/o Ram Kishan, R/o 5Kd, Teh. Rawla, Dist.
Anoopgarh.
3. Sarbati Devi W/o Uda Ram, R/o Panditawali, Teh.
Peelibanga, Dist. Hanumangarh.
4. Geeta Devi W/o Lt. Sh. Kesara Ram, R/o Panditawali, Teh.
Peelibanga, Dist. Hanumangarh.
5. Sahab Ram S/o Hari Ram Meghwal, R/o 15 Gb, Teh.
Shrivijayanagar, Dist. Anoopgarh.
6. Jeet Ram S/o Hari Ram Meghwal, R/o 15 Gb, Teh.
Shrivijayanagar, Dist. Anoopgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreekant Verma
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shriram Choudhary, AGA
For Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : Mr. Mrinal Kotai
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
21/01/2025
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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri
Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as
'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.338/2013, arising out of FIR
[2025:RJ-JD:4445] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-474/2025]
No.205/2004 registered at Police Station Sri Karanpur, District Sri
Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 471 and
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 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 was filed against the petitioners for the
offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC. It is
further submitted that petitioners and the complainant-Hemi Bai
settled their disputes through amicable settlement, for which a
compromise-deed was executed and submitted before the learned
trial court on 28.01.2014, upon which, the learned trial court,
after relying on the statement of complainant-Hemi Bai, in which,
she turned hostile and did not support the story of the
prosecution, attested the compromise for the offence under
Section 420 of IPC but kept the proceedings pending for the
offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC as the
same is not compoundable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the
notice of this Court that during the course of trial, the
complainant-Hemi Bai died on 07.10.2019 and her legal hairs i.e.
respondent Nos.2 to 6 filed an affidavit and a joint application
[2025:RJ-JD:4445] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-474/2025]
before the learned trial court on 14.09.2023 for quashing of the
FIR and all the consequential proceedings pending against the
petitioners, on the basis of compromise entered in between the
parties.
5. It is submitted that 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.
6. 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.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.2 to 6 admit the fact of compromise and submits
that the respondent Nos.2 to 6, who happened to be legal hairs of
complainant-Hemi Bai, are willing if the FIR and the proceedings
are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the
parties.
8. Learned AGA has opposed the petition.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record more particularly the police report,
nature of allegation, the compromise-deeds executed in between
the petitioners and complainant-Hemi Bai as well as in between
the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 to 6, statement of
complainant-Hemi Bai and order-sheet of learned trial court, in
which, the factum of compromise entered in between the
petitioners and complainant-Hami Bai has been averred. The
[2025:RJ-JD:4445] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-474/2025]
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.
10. 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.
11. Here in this case, though some of the offences are not
compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably,
[2025:RJ-JD:4445] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-474/2025]
the respondent Nos.2 to 6, who happened to be legal hairs of
complainant-Hemi Bai, 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.
12. Accordingly the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed.
The entire proceeding pending in the Court of learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in
Criminal Case No.338/2013 arising out of FIR No.205/2004
registered at Police Station Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar
are hereby quashed and set aside.
13. The accused petitioners are acquitted from the charges
and their bail bonds are discharged.
14. The stay petition is disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.55
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
