Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bajrang Nath Anr Ors vs State Of Raj And Anr on 8 December, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misccellaneous (Petition) No. 6366 / 2017
1. Bajrang Nath S/o Shri Kana Nath B/c Jogi, R/o Village Dabrela,
Police Station Sarwad, District Ajmer, Raj.
2. Smt. Prem W/o Shri Bajrang Nath B/c Jogi, R/o Village Dabrela,
Police Station Sarwad, District Ajmer, Raj.
3. Suwa Nath S/o Shri Arjun Nath B/c Jogi, R/o Village Dabrela,
Police Station Sarwad, District Ajmer, Raj.
4. Prem Nath S/o Shri Chandra Nath B/c Jogi, R/o Village Dabrela,
Police Station Sarwad, District Ajmer, Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through PP.
2. Smt. Bhuli Devi W/o Amar Nath, D/o Sukha Nath B/c Jogi, R/o
Bidla, Police Station Sarwad, District Ajmer, Raj.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP for State Mr. Mohd. Anees, for respondent No.2 _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Order 08/12/2017 Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarwad, District Ajmer, in Sessions Case No.55/2013, arising out of FIR No.114/2007 registered at Police Station Sarwad, District Ajmer, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
Parties are present in court alongwith their respective counsels. Parties present in court have been identified by their respective counsels.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6366/2017] Shri Jai Kishan Yogi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that case of the prosecution is that on 22.3.2007 somebody impersonated the complainant, Smt. Bhuli Devi, and executed forged sale deed qua her land, aggrieved against which, Smt. Bhuli had lodged the FIR. In Criminal Case No.55/2013 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarwad, District Ajmer, charges were framed against the accused- petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
It is contended that during pendency of criminal proceedings, matter was amicably resolved to promote everlasting peace and harmony between the parties and consequently, a compromise was presented vide application (Annx.4) before the trial court. The trial Judge vide Annexure-5 on 1.11.2017 passed order whereby compromise was verified and accepted qua offence under Section 420 IPC. The order dated 1.11.2017 passed by the trial court reads as under:-
"01-11-2017 ,ihih mifLFkrA vfHk;qDrx.k lHkh e; odhy mifLFkr ijhokfn;k Hkwyh us vfHk;qDrx.k ls ckor~ vuqefr jkthukek /kkjk 420 vkbZihlh esa is'k fd;kA ftls i<+ dj lquk;k x;k rks lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;k vr% jkthukek i`Fkd ls /kkjk 420 vkbZihlh esa rLnhd fd;k tkrk gS 'ks"k /kkjkvksa esa jkthukek dkfcy ugh gkssus ls vLohdkj fd;k x;kA vfHk;qDrx.k dks /kkjk 420 vkbZihlh ls tfj;s jkthukek nks"keqDr fd;k tkrk gS 'ks"k /kkjkvksa dk fopkj.k 'ks"k gS vr% xokgku 'ks"k dks tfj;s MhMCY;w 1]000@& ls ryc fd;k tkos i=koyh lk{; gsrq 15-12-2017 dks is'k gksA"
Complainant, Smt. Bhuli Devi who is present in court, on asking of her counsel has also stated that a compromise has been affected between the parties.
Shri Jai Kishan Yogi, learned counsel for the accused-
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6366/2017] petitioners, further submitted that the sale deed which was executed by some other lady by impersonating Smt. Bhuli Devi, complainant, has been annulled due to decree passed by the civil court on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the parties have jointly relied upon the observations made by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303] to contend that this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can quash the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings, where the parties have amicably resolved their disputes.
Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and prayer made by the learned counsel for the parties in presence of the complainant and considering the fact that the dispute was essentially of civil nature and same has been resolved by way of compromise, the present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR alongwith all subsequent proceedings is quashed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J. Govind/