SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Tiku Ram & Ors vs State & Anr on 27 October, 2017

S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 900/ 2016

1. Tiku Ram s/o Shri Sukha Ram, Posted as Head Constable, CISF
Unit PCCL, Bawana, New Delhi. Permanently r/o Village Khariya,
P.O. Bardwa Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur.

2. Smt.Santosh w/o Shri Tiku Ram, r/o Village Khariya, P.O.
Bardwa Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur.

3. Manju Devi w/o Shri Rajkumar d/o Tiku Ram, r/o Village
Anesariya, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur.


1. The State of Rajasthan.

2. Smt.Suman w/o Late Shri Manjeet Singh, b/c Jat r/o Village
Dhyawa, P.S. Jaswantgarh, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr.V.S.Rajpurohit PP for the State.



1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has been preferred for quashing FIR No.10/2016 registered at

Police Station, Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur for the offences under

Sections 406, 498A, 323 and 354 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the parties had jointly agreed to

the order dated 30.08.2017, which reads as under:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the
outset, undertakes that in the case of succession,
which is going on before the competent court, they
shall not raise any objection to the extent of pension
(2 of 3)

arising out of service of the deceased husband of the
respondent No.2, and further, they shall not create
any impediment in facilitating the compassionate
appointment to the respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 undertakes
that the respondent No.2 shall not claim anything
beyond the pension arising out of service of her
deceased husband and the right of compassionate
appointment, which is available to the respondent
No.2 on account of death of her husband.

Learned counsel for both the parties have
agreed to the point that a compromise has happened
between the parties and the matter deserves to be
closed, in view of the aforesaid undertakings.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further
undertakes that except for the aforementioned two
rights i.e.pension and compassionate appointment, the
respondent No.2 shall waive all other rights, which are
claimed in the succession petition.

The aforesaid undertakings shall not prejudice
the claim petition filed by the parties regarding the
MACT claim.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to instruct
the concerned investigating officer to take the
compromise on record and verify the same and furnish
the report of his conclusion, strictly in accordance with
law, on the next date.

Let the matter be listed on 20.09.2017. Interim
order, if any, shall continue till the next date.”

3. Today also, learned counsel for the parties, Shri Vishal

Sharma and Shri R.S.Choudhary have agreed that this is a family

matter and they are fully abiding by the aforequoted order dated

30.08.2017 passed on agreement between both the parties.

(3 of 3)

4. Since the present is a family dispute and prolonging

any proceedings shall be an agony to the family, which has

already lost its son/husband, therefore, it will be an abuse of the

process of law, if the proceedings are allowed to continue any

further. In the very special circumstances, where the compromise

between the parties is already on record and the learned counsel

for the parties are agreeable to the terms of the compromise, it is

deemed appropriate to allow the present petition and the same is

accordingly allowed, and the impugned FIR No.10/2016 registered

at Police Station, Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur is quashed and set

aside, alongwith the entire proceedings pursuant thereto, in the

spirit of the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC

303]. However, it is made clear that the terms of the order dated

30.08.2017, as quoted above and agreed upon by learned counsel

for both the parties, shall remain in currency, and in the

succession petition, respondent No.2 shall not claim anything

beyond pension and compassionate appointment arising out of the

death of her deceased husband, without prejudice to her right of

claim in the MACT Claim.



Leave a Reply

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

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