Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raghuveer Verma vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:11803) on 3 March, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:11803]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1641/2025
Raghuveer Verma S/o Sambhuram, Aged About 36 Years,
Chappar P.s. Thui Distt. Sikar, Raj. At Present Assistant
Technician Electricity Department Umaidabad, Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Gajender Singh S/o Kalwaram, Mudiya P.s. Byana Distt.
Bharatpur. At Present Govt. Employee Umaidabad, Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
03/03/2025
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, Jalore
(hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Case
No.7440/2016, arising out of FIR No.262/2015 registered at
Police Station Kotwali, District Jalore for the offence under
Sections 336 and 338 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:11803] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1641/2025]
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 336 and 338 of IPC, however, the
learned trial court has attested the compromise for the
offence under Section 338 of IPC but refused to attest the
compromise for the offence under Section 336 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, it is emanating from the record that
complainant-respondent 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 Deputy Government Advocate has opposed the
petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record more particularly nature of
[2025:RJ-JD:11803] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1641/2025]
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
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:11803] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1641/2025]
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, Jalore in Case No.7440/2016, arising out
of FIR No.262/2015 registered at Police Station Kotwali,
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
47-Ashutosh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
