Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nihal Singh Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12377) on 5 March, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:12377]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1884/2025
1. Nihal Singh Yadav S/o Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 75 Years,
R/o Yadav Property Dealers, Shikargarh Square, Jodhpur.
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Ramgopal Suthar, Aged About 65 Years,
R/o Opposite Airport Office Match, Jodhpur, Jo Bahadur
Colony, Lane Behind Shankar Lal Ram Ratan Petrol Pump,
Ratangarh, Jodhpur.
3. Kanwar Singh S/o Sawtaram, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
Yadav Property Dealers, Shikargarh Square, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Lalita W/o Late Shri Narendra, Aged About 50 Years,
D/o Late Shri Narpat Lal, R/o 1St B Road Sardarpura,
Jodhpur, P.s. Sardarpura, Jodhpur Commissionerate
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, P.P.
Mr. Prashant Tatia for R.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
05/03/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under
Section 528 B.N.S.S. (Section 482 Cr.PC) for quashing of the
entire proceeding pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as
'the trial court') in Case No.318/2011 (265/2014), arising out of
FIR No.449/1998 registered at Police Station Mahamandir, District
Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 464, 467, 469,
471, 474 and 120-B of IPC on the ground of compromise.
[2025:RJ-JD:12377] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1884/2025]
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 has been filed against the petitioners for the
offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B 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 & 120-
B 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 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.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
complainant-respondent No.2 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.
[2025:RJ-JD:12377] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1884/2025]
6. Learned Public Prosecutor 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 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
[2025:RJ-JD:12377] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1884/2025]
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 complainant-respondent No.2 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.
10. Accordingly the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed. The
entire proceeding pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur, arising out of FIR
No.449/1998 registered at Police Station Mahamandir, District
Jodhpur are hereby quashed and set aside.
11. The accused petitioners are acquitted from the charges and
their bail bonds are discharged.
12. The stay petition is disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
301-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
