xHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 313/2022

Dhapu Devi W/o Sh. Shankarlal, Aged About 32 Years, Chak 32

Gb, Teh. Sri Vijaynagar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2.

Dungar Ram S/o Fakira Ram, Village Ghadiyala, Teh.

Kolayat, Dist. Bikaner (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Mr. NR Budania (through VC)

For Respondent No.1

For Respondent No.2

:

:

Mr. SK Bhati, PP

Mr. Vipin Makkad (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

25/01/2022

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC has been

filed by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedings

pending before the Judicial Magistrate Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri

Ganganagar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case

No.701/2017 (State Vs. Dhapu Devi) arising out of FIR

No.237/2016 of Police Station Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar,

wherein the trial court has attested the compromise for the

offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but has not attested the

compromise for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471

and 465 IPC as the same is not compoundable..

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent

No.2 lodged a complaint before the trial court against the

petitioner alleging that the petitioner has filed the nomination for

(2 of 5)

[CRLMP-313/2022]

contesting the election of the Sarpanch while showing his wrong

age. It is also alleged in the said complaint that the petitioner also

submitted forged and fabricated mark-sheet of class 8^th for the

purpose of contesting the said election. On the said complaint, the

FIR No.237/2016 was registered at Police Station Sri Vijaynagar

District Sri Ganganagar. After investigation, the police filed charge

sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC before the trial court, however, the

trial court has framed charges against the petitioner for the

offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 465 IPC

and the trial is pending against the petitioner for the aforesaid

offence. During the pendency of the trial, an application was

preferred on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent

No.2 while stating that both the parties have entered into

compromise and, therefore, the proceedings pending against the

petitioner may be terminated. The learned trial court vide order

dated 26.11.2021 allowed the parties to compound the offence

punishable under Section 420 IPC, however, not attested the

offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 465 IPC as the

same are not compoundable.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the

complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already

entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has

been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 420

I.P.C., there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the

offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 465 I.P.C. It is

also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing

(3 of 5)

[CRLMP-313/2022]

the trial against the petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 468, 471 and 465 I.P.C. because the same may derail the

compromise arrived at between the parties.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has admitted

that the parties have already entered into compromise and the

respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled

against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under

Sections 468, 471 and 465 I.P.C.

The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the

case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT

2012(9) SC–426, has held as below:-

“57.

The position that emerges from