[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Leeladhar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:33468) on 29 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:33468]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6070/2025
Leeladhar S/o Sohan Ram Jat, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of
Mundi Badi (Tibba), P.s. Rajgarh District Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Tikma Ram S/o Prahlad Ram, Resident Of Kamthai P.s.
Sindhari District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
Mr. Aashish Jakhar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
29/07/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under
Section 528, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“It is, therefore most humbly and respectfully
prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and
the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 and criminal
proceedings in the Criminal Case No.238/2024 pending
before the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2,
Balotra for the offence under section 420, 406, 467, 468,
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
complainant – respondent No.2 submitted a written complaint
before the Judicial Magistrate, Balotra alleging inter alia that co-
accused Tipu Choudhary has filed his nomination for the post of
Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Kamthai on the basis of forged and
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:44:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33468] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6070/2025]
fabricated mark sheet of Class-VIII. After the investigation, the
police has filed charge sheet against the petitioner and the other
co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. Learned counsel
further submitted that during the pendency of trial, an application
was presented on behalf of the petitioner and other co-accused
persons and the respondent No.2 before the learned trial Court
stating inter-alia that all the parties have entered into a
compromise and therefore, the proceedings pending against the
petitioner may be terminated.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial
Court vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2024, rejected the
application so filed on behalf of the parties on the ground that only
cognizance under Section 420 has been taken and compromise for
offence alleged to have been committed under Section 420
cannot be accepted as the accused persons are alleged to have
cheated the general public and not a single person.
4. Thus, the present criminal misc. petition has been preferred
by the petitioner for setting aside the impugned order quashing
the said proceedings qua him.
5. Learned counsel further contended that the controversy
involved in the present case has already been put to rest by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dhapu Devi
versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.313/2022) decided on 25.01.2022, wherein the
co-ordinate Bench has set aside the proceedings against the
accused, who contested election of Sarpanch on the basis of
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:44:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33468] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-6070/2025]
forged and fabricated mark-sheet of Class-IXth on the ground of
compromise between the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – complainant
submitted that the complainant does not want to press the
charges against the present petitioner and he has no objection in
case the FIR and proceedings pending before the learned trial
Court are quashed and set aside on the basis of the compromise
arrived at between the parties. The Hon’ble Apex Court while
answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC 426, has held as
below:-
“57. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for compounding
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to
be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such
power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case and no category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though
the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:44:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33468] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-6070/2025]the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have
serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and offender in relation to the offences
under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while working in
that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly
civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial,
financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating
to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is
basically private or personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High
Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because
of the compromise between the offender and victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by
not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete
settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words,
the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the
answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:44:24 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33468] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-6070/2025]Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceedings”
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case
and looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.2
have entered into a compromise and that the complainant does
not wish to further prosecute the petitioner, in the opinion of this
Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal
proceedings pending against the petitioner.
8. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra), this Court is of the
opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings
pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising
powers under Section 528 of BNSS.
9. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the
order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate No.2, Balotra in Criminal Case No.238/2024
and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken there under
are hereby quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner
10. All pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
90-divya/-
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:44:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link