HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 610/2022

Devraj S/o Roop Chand, Aged About 63 Years, B/c Jain, R/o

Desantrion Ka Baas, Balotra, Dist. Barmer. Permanent Address-

Village Sai, Teh. Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2.

Vijay Raj @ Vije Raj S/o Kalu Ram Ji, Aged About 89

Years, B/c Jain, R/o Village Sai, Teh. Shergarh, Dist.

Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Dr. AA Bhansali (through VC)

For Respondent No.1

For Respondent No.2

:

:

Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

Mr. Gurnam Singh (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

09/02/2022

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred by the petitioner-complainant with the prayer for

quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the respondent

No.2 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur

Metro (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case

No.341/2021, whereby the trial court vide order dated 21.01.2022

has attested the compromise for the offence punishable under

Section 420 IPC, but refused to attest the same for the offence

under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC as the same is non-

compoundable.

Brief facts of the case are that on a complaint lodged at the

instance of petitioner, the Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur

(2 of 5)

[CRLMP-610/2022]

Commissionerate has registered an FIR No.226/2018 against the

respondent No.2 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468,

471, 384 and 120-B IPC. After investigation, the police filed

charge-sheet against the respondent No.2 for the offence under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC in the trial court, wherein the

trial is pending against the respondent No.2.

During pendency of trial, an application was preferred on

behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 while

stating therein that both the parties have entered into

compromise and, therefore, the criminal proceedings pending

against the respondent No.2 may be terminated.

The trial court vide order dated 21.01.2022 has allowed the

parties to compound the offence under Section 420 I.P.C.,

however, rejected the application while observing that the offences

under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC are not compoundable.

The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the

petitioner for quashing the said criminal proceedings pending

against respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the

complainant-petitioner and the respondent No.2 have already

entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the respondent

No.2 has been acquitted for the offence under Section 420 IPC,

there is no possibility of his conviction for the offence under

Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. It is also argued that no useful

purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the

respondent No.2 for the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471

I.P.C. because the same may derail the compromise arrived at

between the parties.

(3 of 5)

[CRLMP-610/2022]

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also admitted

that the parties have already entered into compromise and the

petitioner does not want to press the charges levelled against the

respondent No.2 in relation to offence under Section 467, 468 and

471 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 the above

discussion can be summarised thus: the power

of the High Court in quashing a criminal

proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its

inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from

the power given to a criminal court for

compounding the offences under Section 320 of

the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude

with no statutory li