SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jitu @ Jitendra vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 July, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3628/2018

Jitu @ Jitendra S/o Shri Jiyaram B/c Gurjar , R/o Near Sooraj Cinema,
Rampura, Bhiwadi, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)

—-Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan , Through P.p.

2. Neeru Devi , Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Raghunathpur,
P.s. Fatehpur, Distt. Gaya, Bihar, At Present R/o Seema Colony,
Near Sooraj Cinema, Rampura, Bhiwadi, Tehsil Tijara, Distt.
Alwar (Raj.)

—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Sunda
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Yadav
For the State : Mr. Prakash Thakuria, P.P.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

/ Order

24/07/2018

Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.341/2018 dated

04.06.2018 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi District Alwar for

offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 354 I.P.C. and under

Section 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amended 2015) on the basis of the

compromise.

Complainant – Neeru Devi, being a tenant lodged impugned

F.I.R. against the landlord alleging therein that she was compelled to

vacate the room and the complainant had caused slap and kick blow, as

a result of which she fell down.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-3628/2018]

Today, complainant/respondent No.2 – Neeru Devi is present

in person before this Court. She has been identified by her Counsel- Mr.

Rajendra Yadav.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

submitted that from bare perusal of the impugned F.I.R., no offence

under Section 354 I.P.C. is made out.

The learned counsels appearing for the parties have jointly

drawn attention of this Court towards compromise (Annexure-2).

In the present case, quashing of F.I.R. has been sought on

the basis of the compromise. As it is submitted that the parties have

amicably resolved the landlord tenant dispute.

Complainant/respondent No.2 – Neeru Devi, present in

person, has stated that she no longer intends to pursue the present

F.I.R.,
Counsels appearing for the parties have jointly submitted

that since the parties are living in the same vicinity to preserve social

fiber, the present F.I.R. be quashed.

Counsels appearing for the parties have jointly prayed that

since the dispute has been amicably resolved, the criminal case pending

between the parties as well as impugned F.I.R. be quashed.

I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties

and perused the contents of the instant petition.

Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that

since the parties have decided to promote everlasting peace, amity and

harmony and, therefore, dispute which is essentially private in nature

stands resolved.

It has been often held by the Courts that hour of the

compromise is the finest hour between the parties and the Court while
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-3628/2018]

exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash

the proceedings even qua non-compoundable offences.

Relying upon the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Another [(2012) 10 S.C.C. 303], ld. counsel for the parties have

pleaded that this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to quash the criminal proceedings, which have

been amicably resolved.

Considering the fact that parties have amicably resolved

their dispute, the principle established by the Apex Court in the case of

Gian Singh [supra] and in the interest of justice, this Court, hereby,

quashes impugned First Information Report No.341/2018 dated

04.06.2018 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi District Alwar for

offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 354 I.P.C. and under

Section 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amended 2015), along with all

subsequent proceedings.

Resultantly, the petition is, hereby, allowed.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

ashok

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation