SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Udai Lal vs State Ofrajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:9792) on 26 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Udai Lal vs State Ofrajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:9792) on 26 February, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:9792]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1223/2024

1. Udai Lal S/o Dolat Ram, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Mandir
Ke Pass Gangrar District Chittorgarh
2. Ratan Lal S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o
Pachhmata Rajsamand Rajasthan
3. Gaytri Devi W/o Ratan Lal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Pachhmata Rajsamand Rajasthan
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Ofrajasthan, Through Pp
2. Minakshi W/o Naresh D/o Prakash, R/o Pali Rajasthan
—-Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, P.P.
Mr. Pratap Singh, for respondent.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

26/02/2024

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the First Information

Report No.168/2019 registered at the Police Station Gogunda,

District Udaipur for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 354B

and 34 of the IPC.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners 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.

(Downloaded on 27/02/2024 at 08:43:45 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9792] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1223/2024]

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

complainant-respondent admits the fact of compromise and

submits that he is willing if the FIR and the proceedings are

quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the

parties.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

5. 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 dispute is

related to a matrimonial strife. 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. The

offence alleged in this matter is non-compoundable, however,

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 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

(Downloaded on 27/02/2024 at 08:43:45 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9792] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1223/2024]

inter se between the parties, either they are relatives, neighbors

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

dipute 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.

6. Here in this case, though the offences are not compoundable

but 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 vetween the parties,

it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR and all further

proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.

7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR

mentioned above, and all further proceedings undertaken in

pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside. The SHO

concerned is directed to file a closure report with the concerned

Judicial Magistrate within a period of one month from the date of

receiving copy of this order.

6. The stay petition also stands disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J
314-Ravi Khandelwal

(Downloaded on 27/02/2024 at 08:43:45 PM)

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
MyNation Times Magzine


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

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 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