Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32432 (RAJ)

SURAJMAL S/O KISHNA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMP/7360/2024 · 2025-01-21

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7360/2024 1. Surajmal S/o Kishna Ram, aged about 65 Years, R/o Sawai Madhosinghpura, Shivdaspura, Jaipur City (South) Rajasthan 2. Rahul S/o Surajmal, aged about 28 Years, R/o Sawai Madhosinghpura, Shivdaspura, Jaipur City (South) Rajasthan 3. Prem Devi W/o Rahul, aged about 27 Years, R/o Sawai Madhosinghpura, Shivdaspura, Jaipur City (South) Rajasthan 4. Radha Devi W/o Surjmal, aged about 61 Years, R/o Sawai Madhosinghpura, Shivdaspura, Jaipur City (South) Rajasthan 5. Anita D/o Surajmal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Sawai Madhosinghpura, Shivdaspura, Jaipur City (South) Rajasthan 6. Anjana D/o Surajmal, aged about 33 Years, R/o 34, Shiakarpura, Sanganer, Jaipur 7. Sandeep S/o Gopiram, aged about 30 Years, R/o Jato Ki Dhani, Nadia, Sirsi, Jaipur. 8. Gopiram S/o Kanaram, aged about 58 Years, R/o Jato Ki Dhani, Nadia, Sirsi, Jaipur 9. Naresh Choudhary S/o Kailash Chand, aged about 24 Years, R/o 34, Shiakarpura, Sanganer, Jaipur 10. Ramdhan S/o Sharvan, aged about 40 Years, R/o Jaton Ka Mohalla, Gokulpura, Parwan, Phagi, Jaipur Rajasthan 11. Jitendra S/o Birdhichand, aged about 42 Years, R/o 365, Main Sodala Marg, Ramnagar West, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Leelaram S/o Radheshyam Choudhary, R/o Sawai Madhosinghpura, Shivdaspura, Jaipur City (South) Rajasthan ----Respondents (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7360/2024] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Jangir For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP Mr. Ankush Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 21/01/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS has been submitted for quashing of the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No.843/2023 registered with Police Station Shivdaspura, District Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 379 of IPC on the basis of compromise between the parties. 2. It has been submitted that cross-cases have been lodged between the parties and now a compromise has been arrived between them and it is borne out from the compromise that the complainant is not inclined to proceed further in this matter. 3. This Court vide order dated 02.12.2024, directed the parties to appear before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of verification of compromise. 4. In pursuance of the said order, the parties have appeared before the Investigating Officer, who has verified the compromise between the parties and submitted his verification report in this regard. 5. The factual report dated 18.01.2025 produced by the SHO, Police Station Shivdaspura, Jaipur (South) in connected criminal misc. petition No. 7423/2024 is ordered to be taken on the record. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7360/2024] 6. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688. Counsels submit that they are in agreement that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, therefore, the complainant does not want to pursue the matter. 7. In view of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties and the verification report dated 18.01.2025 submitted by SHO, Police Station Shivdaspura District Jaipur (South) and also applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court contained under Section 528 BNSS. 8. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. Proceedings arising out of the FIR No.843/2023 registered with Police Station Shivdaspura, District Jaipur (South) for the above offences is quashed and set aside. 9. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/120