Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 1037

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Anil Goswami & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2773 of 2022
Decided On : 25-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Manjeet Godara, Advocate, Mahipal Bishnoi, Advocate, M.S. Soni, Advocate

The court may quash an FIR based on compromise, nature of the offence, and the relationship between the parties, guided by established legal principles.

Headnote:
Compromise - Quashment of FIR - The court deemed it appropriate to quash the FIR based on the compromise between the petitioners and the complainant, the nature of the offence, and the business relation between the parties. The court was guided by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and State of Haryana Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought quashment of FIR registered against them for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the arms act, citing a compromise with the complainant.
Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the petition, considering the compromise between the parties, the nature of the offence, and the business relation between the parties.
Issues: Quashment of FIR based on compromise and nature of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court deemed it appropriate to quash the FIR based on the compromise between the parties, the nature of the offence, and the business relation between the parties, guided by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The criminal misc. petition is allowed, and the FIR is quashed.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought quashment of FIR No.39/2022, P.S. Bhirani, District Hanumangarh registered against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 25 to 27 of the arms act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the course of investigation, the petitioners and complainant have entered into compromise and the same has been produced before the Investigating Officer, who has verified the same.

3. Mr. Soni, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, while accepting that compromise has taken place, submitted that the complainant does not have any objection if the FIR filed against petitioners is quashed.

4. Mr. Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the parties have compromised. He, however, objected to quashment of the FIR.

5. Having regard to the fact that petitioners and complainant have entered into compromise and considering the nature of offence and that petitioners and complainant had business relation and the scuffle took place because of sudden rage and of course being guided by the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & anr-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [aIR 1992 SC 604], this Court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR in question.

7. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.39/2022, registered at P.S. Bhirani, District Hanumangarh is quashed. Consequence to follow.

8. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document