Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Satish Kumar Sharma, J.
Ramlal Gochar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3873 of 2021
Decided On : 04-08-2021
Quashing - FIR - Section 482 Cr.P.C, Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC - The court discussed the maintainability of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C in light of a compromise and the nature of the offences, ultimately concluding that the FIR could not be quashed due to the non-compoundable nature of the offences involved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR for offences under Sections 420, 467, and 468 IPC, claiming a compromise had been reached with the complainant after an earlier petition for quashing was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was not competent to compound the offence under Section 420 IPC, and the other offences were non-compoundable, thus the FIR could not be quashed.
Issues: Whether the FIR could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C based on a compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was not established due to the non-compoundable nature of the offences involved.
Result: The petition to quash the FIR is dismissed.
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR No. 31/2020 registered at Police Station Kaprain, District Bundi for the offences under Sections 420, 467 & 468 IPC.
2. Heard Learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the earlier SB CRLMP No. 1607/2020 filed for quashing of the said FIR has been dismissed by this Court but subsequently compromise has been arrived at between the parties hence, in changed circumstances, this second petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner which is maintainable in view of the judicial pronouncements in Vinod Kumar IAS Vs. Union of India [2021 (4) CTC 495]; Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Mohan Singh [(1975) 3 SCC 706]; Anil Khadkiwala Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. [(2019) 17 SCC 294]; Shri Rameshwar Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor [SB CRLMP No. 3162/2015]; Prithvi Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [SB CRLMP No. 661/2016]; Balbir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [CRLR No. 420 of 2016]; Nijnam Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan [SB CRLMP No. 3376/2017].
He further submits that the petitioner has not committed any cognizable offence. He has not forged any document whatsoever. At the most, it can be said that false information has been given by him in the nomination form which cannot be termed as cheating or forgery. The election petition filed against the present petitioner has already been withdrawn. Compromise has been arrived at between the contesting parties. The impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. He has placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements ? Amita Maria Das & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 199/2018]; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.. 2107-125/2011]; Pawan Singh Naruka Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [SB CRLMP No. 6920/2018]; Munshi Ram Tutlani & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [SB CRLMP Nos. 534/2008 & 535/2008]; Ritesh Kedia & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan [SB CRLMP No. 2717/2021]; Deep Chand Maheshwari Vs. State of Rajasthan [SB CRLMP No. 3542/2021]; Prabhatbhai Ashir Vs. State of Gujarat [(2017) 9 SCC 641]: (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 1: 2017 SCC online SC 1189; Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168]; Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2009) 7 SCC 712]; ARCI Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd. [(2016) 1 SCC 348]; State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal and Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604]; Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar [(2009) 8 SCC 751].
4. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent has no objection in quashing of the present FIR.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition with the submission that all the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner have been dealt with in his earlier petition which has been dismissed.
6. Heard. Considered.
7. Though in light of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the subsequent petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC can be held to be maintainable in changed circumstances.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a SB CRLMP No. 1607/2020 for quashing of the same FIR which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2021 on merits. Now, this petition has been filed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the petitioner and the contesting candidate of election who filed an election petition against the petitioner.
9. Since the alleged offences have been committed by the petitioner during the course of election process, therefore, the complainant-respondent Mr. Rinku Kumar S/o Shravan Kumar is not competent to compound the offence under Section 420 of IPC as he cannot be termed to be the person cheated under the provisions of 320 of Cr.PC and the remaining offences of Section 467 & 468 IPC are not compoundable.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again raised the grounds that in this matter offence of cheating and forgery are not m
A compromise does not permit quashing of FIRs for non-compoundable offences under IPC.
The court clarified that allegations of forgery allow for FIR registration without a public servant's complaint, thus enabling investigation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations in an FIR must disclose a cognizable offence, and the appropriate remedies should be pursued for challenging elections, with l....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash FIRs under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the categories of cases where this power could be exercised.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence and only constitute non-cognizable offences, the FIR can be quashed.
The court held that allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under Section 170 IPC, and quashing was not warranted at this stage.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
