Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 1038
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Raman Swami & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2647 of 2022
Decided On : 25-05-2022
Manjeet Godara, Advocate, Mahipal Bishnoi, Advocate, M.S. Soni, Advocate
The court can quash an FIR based on compromise and considering the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case.
Headnote:
Compromise - Quashing of FIR - The court quashed the FIR filed against the petitioners based on the compromise reached between the parties, the nature of the offence, and the business relation between the petitioners and the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashment of FIR filed against them for offences under Sections 342, 341, 323, 382, and 143 of the Indian Penal Code, citing a compromise reached with the complainant during the investigation.
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 petitioners and the complainant.
Issues: Quashment of FIR based on compromise and nature of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and State of Haryana Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal, and deemed it appropriate to quash the FIR based on the compromise and the circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The criminal misc. petition was allowed, and the FIR was 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.38/2022, P.S. Bhirani, District Hanumangarh registered against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 342, 341, 323 , 382 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code.
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.38/2022, registered at P.S. Bhirani, District Hanumangarh is quashed. Consequence to follow.
8. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
