SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Laxman Singh S/O Amar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan Through P.P on 6 August, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3712/2018

1. Laxman Singh S/o Amar Singh , R/o Piprol, Police Station
Basedi, District Dholpur, Raj.
2. Hariom S/o Akhey Pal , R/o Piprol, Police Station Basedi,
District Dholpur, Raj.
3. Bajrang S/o Laxman , R/o Piprol, Police Station Basedi,
District Dholpur, Raj.
4. Kalla S/o Ramrachan , R/o Piprol, Police Station Basedi,
District Dholpur, Raj.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p , Jaipur
2. Raju S/o Shiv Singh , R/o Piprol, Police Station Basedi,
District Dholpur, Raj.
—-Respondents

Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3711/2018
Manoj S/o Shiv Singh , R/o Piprol, Police Station Basedi, District
Dholpur, Raj.

—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through P.p , Jaipur

—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Upman
Mr. DK Garg
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya PP

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

-/Order/-

06/08/2018

By this common order, SBCRLMP No. 3712/2018

preferred by Laxman Singh Others vs. State of Rajsthan and
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-3712/2018]

Raju; and SBCRLMP No. 3711/2018 instituted by Manoj and

Another vs. State of Rajasthan another, shall be decided

together.

In SBCRLMP No. 3712, quashing of FIR No. 160/2018

registered at Police Station Basedi, Dholpur for the offences under

Sections 143, 323, 341, 504, 336, 379, 506 and 354 IPC, is

prayed for. In SBCRLMP No. 3711/2018 quashing of FIR No.

166/2018 registered at same Police Station Basedi, Dholpur for

the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 354 IPC, is prayed

for.

The learned counsel for the parties have jointly

submitted that the occurrence in both the FIRs pertain to morning

of 29.5.2018. It is contended that it is case of version and cross-

version. It is further contended that the petitioners and the

complainant are residents of same vicinity.

Quashing of both the FIRs between the parties has

been prayed for on the basis of compromise arrived between the

parties.

This Court on 10.7.2018 in both the petitions had

passed the following common order:-

“Learned counsel for the parties have contended that cross
cases have been registered and petitioners and the complainant
to both the cases are neighbours. Due to intervention of
respectables of the locality, a compromise has been affected
and the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.
In view of above, the trial court is directed to verify the factum
of compromise after recording statements of the accused-
petitioners, complainant-respondents, injured and victim in both
the cases. The trial court, after verifying the factum of
compromise, shall submit its report to this court on or before
31.07.2018.

List both the petitions on 06.08.2018.”

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-3712/2018]

In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the trial Judge had

submitted its report. The said report reads as under:-

“ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj ds vkns’k dh ikyuk esa
accused- petitioners y{e.kflag] gjhvkse ctjax] dYyk]
xqwM~Mq mQZ Hkjrflag ,oa Qfj;knh xokgku jktw mQZ jktdqekj] eukst]
Jherh rkjkorh] tlksnk] foeys’k ds c;ku ys[kc) fd;s x;sA leLr
xokgkus us vius c;kuksa esa jkthukesa gksus dk dFku fd;k gSA leLr
i{kdkjku~ us i`Fkd ls jkthukesa dk izkFkZuki is’k fd;kA lelr xokgku
ds c;kukas ,oa jkthukesa ds voyksdu ds i’pkr~ i{kdkjksa ds e/; jkthukesa
ds rF;ksa dks osjhQkbZ fd;k x;kA iyuk fjiksVZ Jheku th dh lsok esa
lknj izsf”kr gSA
In view of the verification of the compromise and

considering that the offence under Section 354 IPC is not made

out, as in fight between the parties, it is not discernible that

parties had intention to outrage the modesty of woman.

The learned counsel for the parties have jointly relied

upon Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab Another, (2012) 10

SCC 303, to contend that that this Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings to advance the interest of

justice.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this

Court is of the view that the compromise is finest hour between

the parties and this Court ought to grant due sanctity to the

amicable resolution of dispute between the parties.

Consequently, taking totality of circumstances, and

ratio of law laid in the case of Gian Singh (supra), both the

petitions are accepted and the impugned FIRs along with all

subsequent proceedings are quashed.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh