Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Indraraj Son Of Shri Prahlad vs State Of Rajasthan (2023/Rjjp/000186) on 23 January, 2023

Author: Birendra Kumar

Bench: Birendra Kumar

[2023/RJJP/000186]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9327/2022

1.       Indraraj Son Of Shri Prahlad, Aged 50 Years, Resident Of
         Kutalpura Jatan, District Sawaimadhopur.
2.       Ramprasad Son Of Shri Maddu, Aged 40 Years, Resident
         Of Chharoda District Sawaimadhopur.
3.       Jitendra Alias Lala Son Of Shri Badrilal, Aged About 28
         Years,      Resident        Of       Kutalpura             Jatan,    District
         Sawaimadhopur.
4.       Vijay Alias Babbu Son Of Shri Badrilal, Aged About 31
         Years,      Resident        Of       Kutalpura             Jatan,    District
         Sawaimadhopur.
5.       Furkan Son Of Shri Allanoor, Resident Of Raiwlay Colony,
         Police Station Kotwali, Sawaimadhopur.
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The PP
2.       Kalamuddin Son Of Shri Sabbir, Resident Of Vigyan Nagar,
         Ramthambhore            Road,          Police            Station    Kotwali,
         Sawaimadhopur.
                                                                    ----Respondents

Connected with S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9328/2022

1. Kamaluddin Son Of Shri Shabbir Ahmed, Aged 29 Years, Resident Of Vigyan Nagar, Ranthambore Road, District Sawaimadhopur.

2. Ameena Bano Wife Of Khangi Khan, Aged 88 Years, Resident Of Pacchipalya The. And District Sawaimadhopur.

3. Janardhan Choudhary Alias Joni Son Of Shri Vijender Choudahry, aged about 33 years, Resident Of Gotra The. Khandar, District Sawaimadhopur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The P.p. (Downloaded on 30/01/2023 at 11:48:01 PM) [2023/RJJP/000186] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-9327/2022]

2. Kedar Prasad Son Of Shri Prahlad, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Kutalpura Jatan, District Sawaimadhopur.

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9331/2022

1. Kamaluddin Son Of Shri Shabbir Ahmed, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Vigyan Nagar, Ranthambore Road, District Sawaimadhopur.

2. Ameena Bano Wife Of Khangi Khan, Aged About 88 Years, Resident Of Pacchipalya The. And District Sawaimadhopur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The P.p.

2. Indraraj Son Of Shri Prahlad, aged 50 years, Resident Of Kutalpura Jatan, District Sawaimadhopur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh Mr. J.S. Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP Mr. Sikandar Singh Sakkarwal (Pet. In 9328 & 9331/22) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR Order 23/01/2023 The petitioners Kamaluddin, Ameena Bano and Janardhan Choudhary alias Joni have filed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9328/2022 for quashing of FIR No. 173/2022 registered with police station Mantown, Sawaimadhopur at the behest of respondent No.2 Kedar Prasad for offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 389, 306 and 511 IPC. (Downloaded on 30/01/2023 at 11:48:01 PM)

[2023/RJJP/000186] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-9327/2022] Petitioners Kamaluddin and Ameena Bano have brought petition No. 9331/2022 registered for quashing of FIR No. 161/2022 registered with police station Mantown, Sawaimadhopur at the behest of respondent No. 2 Indraraj for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 389, 306 and 511 IPC.

Petitioners Indraraj, Ramprasad, Jitendra @ Lala, Viijay @ Babbu and Furkan have brought petition No. 9327/2022 for quashing of FIR No. 275/2022 registered with police station Kotwali, Sawaimadhopur at the behest of respondent No.2 Kalamuddin for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 379, 427, 436 and 506 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though some of the offences are not compoundable, however, dispute is of private nature and parties have settled their dispute outside the court. On such submission, by order dated 04.01.2023 parties were directed to appear before Investigating Officer to verify the compromise and the Investigating Officer was directed to submit report in this regard. Report of the Investigating Officer submitted separately in three different cases are on the record.

Parties have admitted compounding of the cases, before investigating officer.

Considering the nature of offences alleged and the fact that dispute is of private nature arising out of land dispute for substantial justice, prayer for quashing of FIRs are hereby allowed and all the petitions stand hereby allowed accordingly.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J Ashu /18-20 (Downloaded on 30/01/2023 at 11:48:01 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)