MADAN LAL BAJIA ALIAS MADAN CHAUDHARY S/O REKHARAM BAJIA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMP/1518/2025 · 2025-05-01
Sameer Jain
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11183 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11183 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:18456] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1518/2025
1. Madan Lal Bajia Alias Madan Chaudhary S/o Rekharam Bajia, R/o 301, Shivam Residency, Banipark, Jaipur.
2. Manoj Kumar Sahtani S/o Sundar Lal Sahtani, R/o D-398, D-Block, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Rajasthan, 302023.
3. Basant Kumar Vaswani S/o Tikamdas, R/o 123/375, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
4. Dinesh Garg S/o Brijmohan Garg, R/o F-2/34, Indraprasth Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
5. Mahender Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kajod Mal Sharma, R/o Plot No. 35, D. P. Colony, Shastri Nagar, Nahari Ka Naka, Jaipur.
6. Manoj Sharma S/o Damodar, R/o- 80-C, D.P. Colony, Sindhu Nagar, Jaipur.
7. Munna Kumar S/o Kanhaiyalal Prasad, R/o 30, Shiva Nagar-5, Macha, Harmada, Tagore ITI, Jaipur. ----Petitioners/Accused Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.
2. Sunil Rana S/o Shri Amar Singh Rana, R/o- E2/43, Sector 15, Rohini, K. N. Katju Marg, Delhi. (Complainant) ----Respondents/Coplainants Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 836/2025
1. Sunil Rana, Aged About 63 Years, (Retd. Additional District And Sessions Judge, Delhi Judiciary)/ (Local Commissioner Appointed By District Judge Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Commercial Court, Dwarka), S/o Shri Amar Singh Rana, Age 63 Years, R/o-E2/2/43, Sector 15, K. N. Katju Marg, Rohini, Delhi.
2. Gautam Bhasin (Advocate), S/o Harish Bhasin, R/o 65-A, Pkt-F, G.T.B. Encl., MIG Flats, Dilshad Garden, Delhi -
110093.
3. Avinash Nagarwal (Advocate), S/o Prabhu Dayal Nagarwal, R/o C-174, 2nd Floor, Tagore Garden Extn., New Delhi -110027
4. Aman Vedwal (Advocate), S/o P.S. Vedwal, R/o C 8/10, Ground Floor, Mianwali Nagar, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi -110087.
5. Varun Khanna (Advocate), S/o Sanjiv Khanna, R/o- B1/176, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi - 110063.
6. Sachin Kumar, S/o Khub Singh, R/o-A2/60, Ground Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027. ----Petitioners
[2025:RJ-JP:18456] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1518/2025] Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.
2. Satish Thadani S/o Harish Chand Thadani, R/o B 4 Basement, Sindu Nagar, Nahari Ka Naka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, P.P. Mr. Rahul Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment 01/05/2025
1. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1518/2025 is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, with prayer to quash the FIR No.544/2024 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur Metro (North) for offences under Sections 121(1) 132, 74, 126(2), 115(2), 351(2) and 324(2) of BNS.
2. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 836/2025 is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, with prayer to quash the FIR No.562/2024 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur Metro (North) for offences under Sections 3(5), 61(2)(a), 189(4), 190, 74, 75, 308(6), 309(5), 318(4), 335 and 336(2) of BNS, on the basis of compromise effectuated between the parties herein, in respect of their inter-se dispute.
3.
Learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that the instant dispute is in personam in nature and both the parties have settled their disputes amicably.
4. Heard and considered.
[2025:RJ-JP:18456] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1518/2025]
5. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to place reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2022 (14) SCC 531], relevant portion of the aforesaid is reproduced below:
“12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non- compoundable.”
6. In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforementioned case, and considering the personal nature of dispute, which has been amicably settled between parties, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the present misc. petitions. Compromise is taken on record.
7. Considering the aforementioned, the present criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and the FIR Nos. 544/2024 and 562/2024 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur Metro (North) with all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.
8. Accordingly, the instant petitions are allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J GAURAV/231-232