Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Shakti Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:31877) on 21 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:31877]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5678/2025
1. Shakti Singh S/o Jabbar Singh Rajput, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Bhanpura, Police Station Sayra, District
Udaipur.
2. Bhanwar Singh S/o Devi Singh Rajput, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Nikor, Police Station Sayra, District Udaipur.
3. Surendra Singh S/o Parvat Singh, Aged About 65 Years,
R/o Delwadiya, Police Station Kelwara, District Rajsamand
4. Dhan Singh S/o Badan Singh Rajput, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Bada Solankiyan, Sindarli, Police Station
Desuri, District Pali.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Harish Kumar S/o Babu Lal, R/o Kamol, Police Station
Sayra, District Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rathore, PP
Mr. Sanjay Patel
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
21/07/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. Petition has been filed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings of Regular
Criminal Case No.443/2021 pending before the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda, District Udaipur arising out of FIR
No.110/2020 registered at Police Station Sayra, District Udaipur
for the offences under Sections 427, 506, 387/34, 435/34 of IPC
and 4/25 of ARMS Act, on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties.
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 06:18:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31877] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5678/2025]
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
dispute in between the parties has been resolved through an
amicable settlement and now, there remains no controversy in
between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal
proceedings further.
3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the learned trial Court has attested the compromise for the
offence under Section 427 & 506 of IPC but has not attested the
compromise for the offences under Section 387/34, 435/34 of the
IPC and under Section 4/25 of ARMS Act 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 Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.
5. It is emanating from the order sheet of court below that
complainant-respondent is ready for compromise and he is willing
if the FIR and the proceedings are quashed on the basis of
compromise entered in between the parties.
6. Heard, 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 by filing a joint application before the trial
court. Some of the offences alleged in this matter are non-
compoundable, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 06:18:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31877] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5678/2025]
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(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
inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent
proceedings initiated thereto.
7. Here in this case, the parties have settled the dispute
amicably 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
criminal proceedings mentioned above as well as any other
proceedings arising out of the above FIR.
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 06:18:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31877] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5678/2025]
8. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous Petition is allowed
and the further proceedings of Regular Criminal Case No.443/2021
pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Gogunda,
District Udaipur arising out of FIR No.110/2020 registered at
Police Station Sayra, District Udaipur are hereby quashed and set
aside. The accused are acquitted from the charge and their bail
bonds are discharged.
9. The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
128-chhavi/-
(Downloaded on 24/07/2025 at 06:18:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link