Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Narayani Gurjar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:11151) on 5 March, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:11151]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 489/2024
1. Narayani Gurjar W/o Ram Prasad, Aged About 46 Years,
Takhatpura, Teh Kotadi, Dist Shahpura (Bhilwara)
2. Ram Prasad S/o Panna Gurjar, Aged About 47 Years,
Takhatpura, Teh Kotadi, Dist Shahpura (Bhilwara)
3. Shivraj S/o Ram Prasad, Aged About 29 Years,
Takhatpura, Teh Kotadi, Dist Shahpura (Bhilwara)
4. Kalu S/o Panna Gurjar, Aged About 31 Years, Takhatpura,
Teh Kotadi, Dist Shahpura (Bhilwara)
5. Bhaguta S/o Panna, Aged About 46 Years, Takhatpura,
Teh Kotadi, Dist Shahpura (Bhilwara)
6. Jaipal S/o Panna, Aged About 36 Years, Takhatpura, Teh
Kotadi, Dist Shahpura (Bhilwara)
7. Panna S/o Jabra, Aged About 81 Years, Takhatpura, Teh
Kotadi, Dist Shahpura (Bhilwara)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt Khana Devi Gurjar W/o Shankar Gurjar, Residents Of
Takhatpura, Teh Kotadi, Dist Shahpura(Bhilwara)
3. Shankar S/o Ladu Gurjar, Residents Of Takhatpura, Teh
Kotadi, Dist Shahpura(Bhilwara)
4. Kalu S/o Ladu Gurjar, Residents Of Takhatpura, Teh
Kotadi, Dist Shahpura(Bhilwara)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Gurjar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
Mr. Vishal Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 05/03/2024
1. The instant criminal misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of FIR No.01/2021 registered at Police Station (Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:05:39 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:11151] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-489/2024] Paroli, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan for the offences under Sections 143, 452, 323, 307 & 356 of IPC.
2. It is submitted by learned 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.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant- respondents 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 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. Some of the offences alleged in this matter are 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 (Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:05:39 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:11151] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-489/2024] 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 inter se between the parties, either they are relatives, neighbours 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 dispute 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. There is a cross case of the same incident in which both the parties have sustained injuries. Both are residents of a small village and are neighbours and belongs to the same caste and community. After going through the facts narrated in the FIR No(s).02/2021 as well as 01/2021, it is felt that there was no previous animosity between the parties and as such both the parties were having no intent to kill the other party. Rather, the dispute erupted in a spur of moment without pre-meditation or pre-consult and both the parties have sustained injuries. From the bare perusal of the facts and circumstances of both cases as well as going through the injury report of the injured of both the cases, prima facie, it can be observed that no case under Section 307 of IPC is made out. In other words, it can be said that sufficient material is not available to attract Section 307 of IPC or to bring home the guilt thereunder. 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 (Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:05:39 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:11151] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-489/2024] resolve the dispute finally in between 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.
8. The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J 230-Samvedana/-
(Downloaded on 15/03/2024 at 09:05:39 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)