Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hari Prasad vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:4897) on 23 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:4897]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 193/2025
Hari Prasad S/o Sh. Jagannath Pushkarna, Aged About 57 Years,
R/o Motha, Ps Sadar, Nimbaheda, Dist. Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Narayan Singh S/o Sh. Fateh Singh, R/o Tilakheda, Ps
Sadar Nimbaheda, Dist. Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Saruparia
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shriram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
23/01/2025
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 No.2,
Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the
trial court') in Regular Criminal Case No.519/2018, arising out of
FIR No.392/2017 registered at Police Station Nimbahera Sadar,
District Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 of 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 which a
[2025:RJ-JD:4897] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-193/2025]
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 petitioners for the
offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, however, the
learned trial court has attested the compromise for the offence
under Section 420 of IPC but refused to attest the compromise for
the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 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. It is emanating from the record, copy of compromise-deed
furnished before the learned trial court and the order-sheet of the
learned trial court that the complainant-respondent No.2 has
entered into compromise with the petitioner and he 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 nature of allegation,
copy of compromise-deed executed between the parties and
furnished before the learned trial court and the order-sheet of the
[2025:RJ-JD:4897] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-193/2025]
learned trial court. 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.
9. Here in this case, though some of the offences are not
compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably,
[2025:RJ-JD:4897] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-193/2025]
the complainant-respondent No.2 do not wish to continue the
proceedings against the petitioner/s 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.2, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh in
Regular Criminal Case NO.519/2018 arising out of FIR
No.392/2017 registered at Police Station Nimbahera Sadar,
District Chittorgarh are hereby quashed and set aside.
11. The accused petitioner is acquitted from the charges and
his bail bonds are discharged.
12. The stay petition is disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.54
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
