Rajasthan High Court

CRLMP/7542/2019 of DHARA SINGH S/O SHRI JAGDISH SINGH B/C RAJPUT Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 20 December 2019

JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7853/2019 1. Prahlad Singh S/o Jagdish Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Papad Thana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj. 2. Bhawani Singh S/o Jagdish Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o Papad Thana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7853/2019

1. Prahlad Singh S/o Jagdish Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o PapadThana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.Thana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.

2. Bhawani Singh S/o Jagdish Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o PapadThana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.Thana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.

3. Hanuman Singh S/o Surjan Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o PapadThana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.Thana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.

4. Nandu Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o PapadThana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.Thana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.

5. Ram Singh S/o Sultan Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o PapadThana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.Thana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.

6. Mohan Singh S/o Surjan Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o PapadThana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.Thana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.

7. Gajraj Singh S/o Sardar Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o PapadThana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.Thana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.

8. Kalu Singh S/o Sardar Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o PapadThana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.Thana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.

9. Ranjit Singh S/o Sardar Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o PapadThana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.Thana, Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Raj.

----PetitionersVersus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

2. Krishna Kumar Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Narayan Meena,Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Medhraj Singhpura,Town Jamwaramgarh, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, DistrictJaipur, Raj.Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Medhraj Singhpura,Town Jamwaramgarh, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, DistrictJaipur, Raj.

----Respondents

Connected With

Page 1 of 3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7542/2019

Dhara Singh S/o Shri Jagdish Singh B/c Rajput, R/o Papad,Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur, Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

2. Krishna Kumar Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Narayan Meena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Medhraj Singhpura,Town Jamwaramgarh, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, DistrictJaipur, Raj.----RespondentsS.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8049/2019Krishna Kumar Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Narayan Meena, AgedAbout 24 Years, Village Medhraj Singhpura TownJamwaramgarh Tehsil Jamwaramgarh District Jaipur Raj.----PetitionerVersus1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp2. Himmat Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o1026/30, Shiv Colony Baai Ji Ki Kothi Jhalana DungriJaipur Raj.----RespondentsFor Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar UpmanMr. Sanjeev Kumar Sogarwal forMr. Rajeev Kumar SogarwalFor Respondent(s): Mr. S.S. Ola, P.P.For Complainant(s)Mr. Hari Ram Gurjar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

20/12/2019

Order

1. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have been preferredby the petitioners for quashment of the FIRs No.399/2019 (SBCriminal Miscellaneous Petition No.7853/2019 & 7542/2019) &400/2019 (in SB Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.8049/2019)registered with Police Station Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur,respectively. A perusal of the FIRs reveals that there are crosscases between the parties.

2. It is contended by the learned counsels for the respectiveparties that the parties have resolved their disputes and do notwant to prosecute the allegations further. They prayed forquashing the FIRs.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

Page 2 of 3

4. The complainant as well as the accused persons in both theFIRs are present in person and they have submitted that in viewof the amicable settlement amongst them, the FIRs in question bequashed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Although, FIRNo.399/2019 also been registered under Section 307 of IPCbesides other offences; but, the injured Mohan Singh as well asKanaram, who, as per the FIR, has received the grievous injuries,are present in person and have stated that they did not receiveany grievous injury on the vital part of the body. In thesecircumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the FIR in questioncan be quashed even though it has been registered under Section307 of IPC. The Hon’ble Apex Court has, in the judgment of GianSingh versus State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012 (9)SC-426, held that proceedings in criminal cases, on the basis ofcompromise between the parties, which do not pertain to theheinous offences, should be quashed. The present case does notfall under any of the exceptions carved out in the aforesaidjudgment. As it apparent from the perusal of the FIRs, the samedo not involve commission of any heinous offence and the partieshave already settled their disputes and in the interest of justice,the aforesaid FIRs be quashed. Therefore, in the aforesaidcircumstances, to meet the ends of justice, I quash both the FIRsNo.399/2019 & 400/2019 registered with Police Station Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, in view of the compromisebetween the parties.

7. Resultantly, all the criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed.

8. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/122, 181-182

Page 3 of 3

Loading citations and judicial treatment…