HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

CRM(M) No. 378/2020

CrlM Nos. 630/2021, 1406/2020,

1405/2020 & 1404/2020

Arun Mohinder Tripathi

…..Appellant/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate.

Petitioner is present in person.

Vs

UT of J&K and Anr.

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG for R-1.

Mr. Munish Kumar Sharma, Adv. for R-2.

Respondent No 2 is present in person.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

ORDER

31.08.2021

1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the

FIR No. 0055/2018 dated 06.03.2018, registered with Police Station, Gandhi

Nagar, Jammu against the petitioner for commission of offences under Section

379 RPC on the ground that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have entered

into compromise and the compromise deed dated 19.10.2020 has been executed

between the parties. From the perusal of the compromise deed, it is evident that

it has been stated by the respondent No. 2 that he has come to know that the

petitioner is innocent and is not involved in commission of the offences and by

virtue of the said agreement, the parties have settled the dispute amicably

without any undue pressure or influence from any quarter. A perusal of the FIR

in question reveals that name of none of the accused has been mentioned in the

said FIR.

2.

Both the contesting parties are present in the Court today.

Sr. No. 105

(Regular Cause list)

2

CRM(M) No. 378/2020 a/w connected

CrlMs.

3.

The respondent No. 2, namely, Mohd. Sadiq, who is present in the

Court today is identified by his counsel, Mr. Munish Kumar Sharma, Advocate.

He has stated in the open Court that he does not want to continue with the

litigation and has no objection, if the FIR in question is quashed.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the

pendency of the present petition, the charge sheet also stands filed and the same

is sub-judice before the Court of Passenger Tax, Jammu, copy whereof has been

submitted in the open Court. The perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the

offences under Sections 379/420 RPC stand established.

5.

On the other hand, Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG has submitted

that the proceedings cannot be quashed, as the offence under Section 379 RPC is

not compoundable.

6.

Heard and perused the charge-sheet.

7.

A perusal of the FIR reveals that there is no whisper with regard to the

details of the accused, who has allegedly stolen the bike. However, a perusal of

the charge-sheet reveals that the vehicle in question was parked outside the

office of the SDRF and from there, it was stolen by the petitioner and the

petitioner fixed some number plate on the said bike and that number plate

pertained to the scooty of the petitioner. In the light of this, the offence under

Section 420 RPC was also added. Both the petitioner and respondent No. 2

work in SDRF.

8.

A perusal of Section 345 Cr.P.C reveals that the offence under

Section 379 RPC is compoundable, provided the value of the property stolen

3

CRM(M) No. 378/2020 a/w connected

CrlMs.

does not exceed two hundred and fifty rupees. Similarly, so far as Section 420

RPC is concerned, the same is compoundable with the permission of the Court.

9.

A perusal of the Section 420 RPC further reveals that there must be a

cheating and for the purpose of cheating, there must be deception, so as to

persuade the victim to part away with the possession of his property, the

ingredients are absolutely missing in the instant challan.

10.

Law in this regard is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

“State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and ors., reported in (2019) 5

SCC 688” has held as under:-

“29.1.Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be

distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compo