Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt Geeta Devi & Ors vs State & Anr on 8 September, 2016
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRIMINAL MISC. (PET.) (CRLMP) NO.751/2016
1. Smt. Geeta Devi, aged about 48 years, W/o Sh.
Madan Das, B/c Vaishnav, R/o 68, Gharwala Jaw,
Shiv Nagar, Pali (Raj.)
2. Madan Das, aged about 55 years, S/o Sh.
Ghanshyam Das, B/c Vaishnav, R/o 68, Gharwala
Jaw, Shiv Nagar, Pali (Raj.)
3. Jitendra Kumar, aged about 28 years, S/o Sh.
Madan Das, B/c Vaishnav, R/o 68, Gharwala Jaw,
Shiv Nagar, Pali (Raj.)
....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor.
2. Roshan Lal Bohra, aged about 53 years, S/o Sh.
Binjraj, B/c Jain, R/o 2, Ambey Nagar, Mandiya
Road, Pali (Raj.)
...RESPONDENTS
Date of Order :: 08.09.2016
HON'BLE MR. P.K. LOHRA, J.
Mr. NARPAT SINGH, for the Petitioners.
Mr. V.S. RAJPUROHIT, Public Prosecutor, for the State.
Mr. RAKESH ARORA, for respondent No.2.
ORDER
-----------
BY THE COURT:
Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.56/2016 of 2 Police Station Kotwali, District Pali for offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
It appears that, during investigation, petitioners and the complainant have sorted out their dispute and compromise is arrived at. The factum of compromise is also divulged by both the parties to the Investigating Officer.
Taking into account the fact that parties have settled their dispute, the Investigating Officer has proposed negative final report in the matter. The relevant part of the factual report, in this behalf, addressed to the learned Public Prosecutor by SHO, Police Station Kotwali, District Pali is reproduced as under:-
^^lEiw.kZ r¶rh"k] c;ku izkFkhZ] LorU= xokgku o dfFkr vkjksihx.k ls iqNrkN o izkFkhZ }kjk is"k jsdMZ o dfFkr vkjksihx.k }kjk is"k jsdMZ ds fo"ys'.k ls ik;k x;k fd izkFkhZ dh QeZ ls vizkFkhZx.k }kjk o'kZ 2011 ls flrEcj 2014 rd dqy 1]23]47]674 :I;s dk dk;Z djk;k x;k ftl dk;Z dk 1]10]45]075 :I;s dk vizkFkhZx.k }kjk le; le; ij Hkqxrkj fd;k x;k exj vizkFkhZx.k }kjk vius diMk dh fQuhf"kax ls gq, uqdlku dk fMLdkm.V dh ekax dh xbZ rks izkFkhZ }kjk lger ugha gksdj vius iqjs :I;sa ysus ds fy, izdj.k ntZ djkus ds ckn vius odhy ls /kkjk 138 ,uvkbZ ,DV dk uksfVl Hkh fn;k x;k bl nkSjku izkFkhZ }kjk vius feyus okys LorU= xokg Jh f"koizdk"k dks o vizkFkhZ enunkl }kjk vius feyus okys tloUrjkt dks viuh viuh ckr crkbZ ftl ij mDr nksuks LorU= xokgku }kjk nksuks i{kks dks cqykdj :c:
dj izkFkhZ dks vizkFkhZ ds gq, uqdlku dk fMLdkm.V djus dk dgk x;k rks mlus dgk fd eS okLro esa gq, uqdlku dk fMLdkm.V dj nwaxk ftl ij vizkFkhZ enunkl }kjk Hkh lgefr tkfgj dh rc izkFkhZ }kjk 2]52]599 :I;ks dk fMLdkm.V djus ij "ks'k jkf"k 10]50]000 :I;ksa dk Hkqxrku djus ij izkFkhZ }kjk 100 :I;s ds LVkEi isij ij jlhn nsdj ds vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZx.k ls vkbZUnk dksbZ erHksn ugh gksdj bl izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k djus dk fn;k x;kA blls lkQ tkfgj gS fd izkFkhZ }kjk ysunsu ds izdj.k dks ysdj c<k p<k dj vius iSls ysus ds fy, gh izdj.k ntZ djok;k gS tks ekeyk dksbZ vkijkf/kd d`R; dk ugha gksdj vne odq] ¼flfoy uspj½ dk ik;k tkrk gSA^^ 3 In view of the fact that parties have settled their dispute and Investigating Officer has proposed negative final report in the matter, no further directions are required.
Consequently, petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(P.K. LOHRA) J.
a.asopa/-