Kanhiyalal @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

By this common order, SBCRLMP No. 3941/2018 preferred by Kanhaiyalal and his two sons namely Pappu Singh and Ramswaroop against State of

Rajasthan and Prabhudayal, shall be decided alongwith SBCRLMP No. 3942/2018 instituted by Prabhudayal and his son Kanchan against State of

Rajasthan and Trilok Chand.

In SBCRLMP No. 3941/2018 quashing of FIR No. 186/2018 registered at Police Station Laxmangarh, Alwar for the offences under Sections 143,

323, 341, 308 and 354 IPC is prayed for, whereas in SBCRLMP NO. 3942/2018 quashing of FIR No. 185/2018 registered at same Police Station

Laxmangarh, Alwar for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 354, 308 and 379 IPC is prayed for.

It is a case of version and cross-version. Incident pertaining to both the FIRs has taken place on 27.5.2018. Regarding incident, as to who was

aggressor both the parties have given different versions.

Be that as it may, it was pleaded before this Court that on 18.7.2018 that parties have amicably resolved the dipuste.

This Court on 18.7.2018 had passed the following order:-

“The learned advocates appearing for the petitioners contend that both the petitions arise out of a case of version and crossversion. Counsel further

contends that Kanhaiyalal and Prabhudayal are real brothers and the dispute has been amicably resolved.

In both the cases, quashing of F.I.R. has been sought on the basis of compromise.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, a direction is issued to the trial Court to verify the factum of compromise and submit a

report to this Court.

To await the report from the trial Court, list on 09.08.2018.

The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 30.07.2018, along with the injured and the complainant of both the petitions.

Let a copy of this order be placed in the connected petition. â€​

In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, Alwar after verification of compromise has submitted report to

this Court. The report submitted by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, Alwar dated 1.8.2018 reads as under:-

“vuqikyuk esa jkthukek ds rF;ksa ds lR;kiu dh fjiksVZA fnukad@01-08-2018 ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk SB Cr. Misc. Petition No. 3941/18

and 3942/18 esa ikfjr vknsâ€k fnukad 18-07-2018] esa ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- la[;k 185@18 o 186@18 iqfyl Fkkuk] y{e.kxds lR;kiu djus ds lanHkZ esa fn;s x;s vkns’k dh vuqikyuk esa fnukad 30-07-2018 o fnukad 31-07-2018 dks ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- la[;k 185@18 o

186@2018 esa jkthukek ds RkF;ksa dks lR;kiu djus gsrq mifLFkr fjiksVZdrkZ o vkgrx.k dks ijhf{kr fd;k x;kA fnukad 01-08-2018 dks ,Q-vkbZ-vkj-

la[;k 185@2018 o 186@18 esa ifjoknh@vkgrx.k o vfHk;qDrx.k us mifLFkr gksdj jkthukek vkysf[kr dj izLrqr fd;kA

,Q-vkbZ-vkj- la[;k 185@18 esa ifjoknh@vkgrx.k 1f=yksd] 2- dykorh] 3- dUgS;k] 4- iIiwflag] 5- jkeLo:i o 6- lkseksrh] ftudh igpku vf/koDrk Jh vt;

dqekj tSu }kjk dh xbZ ,ao vfHk;qDrx.k 1- jkeiky] 2- lq[kjke] 3xqykcflag] 4- izHkwn;ky] 5- dapu] ftudh igpku vf/koDrk Jh HkkxpUn tSu }kjk dh xbZA

,Q-vkbZ-vkj- la[;k 186@18 esa ifjoknh@vkgrx.k 1izHkwn;ky] 2- dapu] 3- jkeiky] 4- dtksM+h] 5- Jhefr lwjt] 6- Jhefr eatw] 7- Jhefr lksuk] 8- jksfgr

ukckfyx tfj;s ljijLr [kwchjke firk] ftudh igpku vf/koDrk Jh HkkxpUn tSu }kjk dh xbZ ,ao vfHk;qDrx.k 1- dUgS;kyky] 2- iIiwflag] 3- jkeLo:i] 4- rstiky]

5- f=yksd o 6- Jhefr dykorh] ftudh igpku vf/koDrk Jh vt; dqekj tSu }kjk dh xbZA mDr nksuksa izdj.kksa esa i{kdkjku dh vksj ls izLrqr jkthukek esa

vfadr rF;ksa dks i{kdkjksa dks voxr djkrs gq, jkthukek ij muds gLrk{kj@vaxwBk fu’kkuh U;k;ky; esa djok;s tkdj jkthukek ds rF;ksa dk lR;kiu

mDrkuqlkj dj lR;kiu dh fjiksVZ Jheku dh lsok esa lknj  izsf""kr gSA

¼uhjt Hkkew½

ofj""B flfoy U;k;ky; ,ao vfr0 eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] y{e.kxThe learned counsel for the parties have jointly relied

upon Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, to contend that that this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the

proceedings to advance the interest of justice.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the compromise is finest hour between the parties and this Court ought

to grant due sanctity to the amicable resolution of dispute between the parties.

In view of the compromise affected between the

parties, which has been verified by the court below, and taking into consideration ratio of law laid in Gian Singh’s case (supra) both the petitions

are accepted and the impugned FIRs’ assailed in both the petitions are quashed alongwith all subsequent proceedings.