Somesh Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12160)
2025 Latest Caselaw 8211 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 8211 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 March, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Somesh Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12160) on 4 March, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:12160]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 694/2024

Somesh Singh S/o Bharat Singh Thakur, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Near Dwarkadhish Temple, Reti Mohalla, Kankroli, Dist
Rajsamand
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Ms. Yashoda Kunwar D/o Jawan Singh, R/o Jk Circle,
         Kankroli, Dist Rajsamand.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Naresh Khatri
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
                                Mr. OP Choudhary
                                Ms. Geeta Panpaliya



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

04/03/2025

The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the

petitioners under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated

18.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Woman Atrocities Cases, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.68/2022

whereby the learned trial court framed the charges against the

petitioner for offence under Sections 376, 366/511 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the

pendency of the revision petition, compromise has arrived at

between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and in view of the

compromise, the respondent No.2 does not want to proceed

further in the matter. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned

[2025:RJ-JD:12160] (2 of 5) [CRLR-694/2024]

order of framing charge may be quashed and set aside and the

petitioner may be discharged from the aforesaid charges.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 concurs the fact of

compromise arrived at between the parties. However, learned

Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned order as well as other material available on record.

The respondent No.2 in her statement recorded under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically deposed that she is in

friendship with the petitioner and she roamed with the petitioner

in Udaipur. She further deposed that the petitioner did not commit

any wrong act with her. From the perusal of the aforesaid

statement, it appears that no offence is made out against the

petitioner as framed by the trial court. Moreover, compromise has

also been arrived at between the parties and the respondent No.2

does not want to proceed further in the matter.

This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of

Delhi & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2021 decided on

30.07.2021, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

"3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the Appellant had committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that both the Accused (Appellant) and Respondent No. 2 were living together for a considerable while. The complainant's allegation is that the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.

4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact

[2025:RJ-JD:12160] (3 of 5) [CRLR-694/2024]

that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.

5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside;

the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in any other pending proceedings, which shall 20-09-2022 be decided in accordance with law.

7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent."

This Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.4119/2021

decided on 06.04.2022 (Dhabba Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan

& Anr.), has held as under :-

"1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused- petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the I.T. Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of investigation, the petitioner and the complainant have entered into a compromise and thus, no dispute remains pending between them and the complainant does not wish to continue with the present litigation.

[2025:RJ-JD:12160] (4 of 5) [CRLR-694/2024]

3. Learned counsel further submits that the compromise in question has been produced before the Investigating Officer, who has verified the factum of compromise and the same has been executed without any force or coercion.

4. Learned counsel submits that the complaint in question came be to be lodged by the complainant on account of an audio of the conversation between the petitioner and complainant getting viral and now the parties have decided to resolve the dispute having regard to the fact that the petitioner and complainant are close relatives.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant also accepts the fact of the compromise and submits that even the husband of the prosecutrix/complainant has signed the compromise.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering that the complainant is aunt (Mami) of the present petitioner and also considering that the FIR in question was lodged under social pressure and also finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by the Larger Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604], the aforesaid FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.

7. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.