Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kailash Lakhani vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:333) on 3 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:333]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9341/2024
1. Kailash Lakhani S/o Shyamalal, Aged About 26 Years,
9/286 Chopasani Housing Board, (Raj.)
2. Kanaram @ Kishore S/o Heeralal, Aged About 22 Years,
8/88 Chopasani Housing Board, (Raj.)
3. Harikishan @ Harish S/o Shyamlal, Aged About 22 Years,
9/286 Chopasani Housing Board, (Raj.)
4. Kishore @ Kartik S/o Ashok Lakhani, Aged About 30
Years, Meghwalo Ka Baas, Masuriya, Devnagar, (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Smt. Laxmi W/o Late Harish Sen, Aged About 52 Years,
14/276, Chopasani Housing Board, (Raj.)
3. Rajesh Sen S/o Late Harish Sen, Aged About 28 Years,
14/276, Chopasani Housing Board, (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhim Raj Mudia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sriram Choudhary, Addl.G.A.
For Complainant : Mr. Mahesh Khyani
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
03/01/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under
Section 482 Cr.PC/528 BNSS on behalf of the petitioners for
quashing of the entire proceeding pending against them in
the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.2 Metro
(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal
Case No.895/2023, arising out of FIR No.332/2022
registered at Police Station Chopasani Housing Board,
District Jodhpur (City West) for the offence under Sections
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:29:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:333] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-9341/2024]
143, 341, 308, 427 and 379 of the IPC, on the ground of
compromise.
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 341, 323, 308, 427 and
325/34 of IPC, however, the learned trial court has attested
the compromise for the offence under Sections 323, 341,
427 and 325/34 of the IPC but refused to attest the
compromise for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 427
and 325/34 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 Nos.2 &3 admit the fact of
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:29:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:333] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-9341/2024]
compromise and submits that the complainant-respondent
No.2 & 3 are willing if the FIR and the proceedings are
quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the
parties.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record more particularly 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
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:29:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:333] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-9341/2024]
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, the complainant-respondent Nos.2 &3 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 Additional
District Judge No.2 Metro in Case No.895/2023 arising out of
FIR No.332/2022 registered at Police Station Chopasani
Housing Board, District Jodhpur (City West) are hereby
quashed and set aside.
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:29:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:333] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-9341/2024]
11. The accused petitioners are acquitted from the charges and
if they are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.
12. The stay petition is disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
76-Ashutosh/-
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:29:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)