HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6927/2021

1.

Parikshit Rajpurohit S/o Lt. Ganpat Rajpurohit, Aged

About 25 Years, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o H.no. 32, Mahaveer

Nagar, Banar Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

2.

Smt. Monika W/o Parikshit Rajpurohit, Aged About 22

Years, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o H.no. 32, Mahaveer Nagar,

Banar Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2.

Nehru Lal Soni S/o Andaram, H.no. E-8, Masuria, P.s.

Devnagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Aziz Khan, through VC

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP

Mr. Raja Ram for respondent No.2,

through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

25/01/2022

This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the criminal

proceedings pending against them before the

Metropolitan Magistrate No.7, Jodhpur Metro (for short

‘the trial court’), arising out of FIR No.0450/2019 of

Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur City West, whereby

the trial court vide order dated 30.11.2021 has refused to

(2 of 6)

[CRLMP-6927/2021]

attest the compromise for the offences under Sections

380, 34, 451 IPC as the same are non-compoundable.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has

submitted a report to the Police Station Shastri Nagar,

Jodhpur to the effect that on 18.10.2019, when he was

sitting at his jewellery shop, the petitioners came there

and asked him to show some gold ornaments, on which,

he showed them some gold ornaments, which they

snatched and fled away.

On the said complaint lodged at the instance of

respondent No.2, an FIR No.0450/2019 at Police Station

Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur City West was registered against

the petitioners.

After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet

against the petitioners before the trial court for the

above-referred offences, wherein the trial is pending

against them.

During pendency of the trial, a joint application was

moved on behalf of the petitioners as well as the

respondent No.2 stating therein that since both the

parties have entered into compromise, the criminal

proceedings pending against the petitioners may be

quashed.

(3 of 6)

[CRLMP-6927/2021]

The trial court vide order dated 30.11.2021 has

refused to attest the compromise for the offence under

Sections 380, 34, 451 IPC.

The present criminal misc. petition has been

preferred by the petitioners for quashing of the said

criminal proceedings pending against them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that

since the respondent No.2 and the petitioners have

already entered into compromise, there is no possibility

of conviction of the petitioners for the offence under

Section 380, 34, 451 IPC. It is also argued that no useful

purpose would be served by continuing the trial against

the petitioners for the offences under Sections 380, 34,

451 IPC because the same may derail the compromise

arrived at between the parties.

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 petitioners in

relation to the offences under Sections 380, 34, 451 IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

(4 of 6)

[CRLMP-6927/2021]

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 compo