S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2978/2014

Dilip Bafna @ Dilip Kumar Bafna & Anr. V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

O R D E R

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2978/2014

Dilip Bafna @ Dilip Kumar Bafna & Anr.

V/S

State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Date of Order : 16.01.2015

PRESENT

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Mr Vinay Shrivastava, for petitioners.

Mr Vikram Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor.

Mr Kshamendra Mathur, for respondent No.2.

BY THE COURT :-

This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section

482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners

with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.511/2014

dated 03.11.2014 of Police Station, Udaimandir,

District Jodhpur for the offences punishable

under Sections 193, 196, 420, 423, 424, 467,

468, 471, 474, 477/34 and 120-B IPC.

In the instant case, the respondent No.2

has filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial

Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur under Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. and the same has been forwarded to the

concerned police station. The Police Station,

Udaimandir, District Jodhpur has registered the

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2978/2014

Dilip Bafna @ Dilip Kumar Bafna & Anr. V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr.

2

impugned FIR against the petitioners for the

aforesaid offences.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioners that on the complaint filed on

behalf of the respondent No.2, proceedings under

Sections 193, 196, 420, 423, 424, 467, 468, 471,

474, 477/34 and 120-B IPC have been initiated

and the same are pending. It is further

contended by learned counsel for the petitioners

that the respondent No.2 and the petitioners

have compromised the matter and resolved the

dispute between them amicably.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has

argued that since the dispute has already been

amicably settled between the parties, the FIR

No.511/2014 dated 03.11.2014 of Police Station,

Udaimandir, District Jodhpur for the offences

punishable under Sections 193, 196, 420, 423,

424, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477/34 and 120-B IPC

against the petitioners may kindly be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has

conceded that the dispute between the respondent

No.2 and petitioners has already been settled.

Pursuant to the direction given by this

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2978/2014

Dilip Bafna @ Dilip Kumar Bafna & Anr. V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr.

3

Court on 05.12.2014, compromise entered between

the parties has been verified by the

Investigating Officer, who is investigating into

the allegations levelled in the FIR No.511/2014

dated 03.11.2014 of Police Station, Udaimandir,

District Jodhpur for the offences punishable

under Sections 193, 196, 420, 423, 424, 467,

468, 471, 474, 477/34 and 120-B IPC and the

factual report dated 15.01.2015 of this effect

has been submitted by learned Public Prosecutor.

Heard learned counsel for the parties as

well as the learned Public Prosecutor and

perused the material available on record.

It is not in dispute that the dispute

between the parties has already been settled

amicably and the same has been verified by the

Investigating Officer. Today also learned

counsel for the respondent No.2 has

categorically submitted that the respondent No.2

does not want to press the allegations levelled

in the impugned FIR as the dispute has already

been resolved between the parties.

The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a

reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.2978/2014

Dilip Bafna @ Dilip Kumar Bafna & Anr. V/S State of Rajasthan & Anr.

4

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 dis