Ramavtar Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

By this common order, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3574/2018 preferred by Ramavtar Singh and Others, as well as, S.B. Criminal

Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3585/2018 instituted by Mahendra Singh and Others, shall be decided together.

In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3574/2018 quashing of F.I.R. No.241/2018 dated 07.06.2018 registered at Police Station Mahuwa

District Dausa for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 354 I.P.C. and under Section 3 (1) (w) (I) & 3 (1) (v) of the S.C. /S.T.

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is prayed for.

In F.I.R. No.241/2018 complainant â€" Mahendra Singh stated that on 07.06.2018 he had gone to the house of Ummed Singh where his family

members were caused injuries and Raghuveer had pulled headgear (dupta) of his daughter.

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3585/2018 has been preferred by Mahendra Singh, complainant to F.I.R. No.241/2018 which is impugned

in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3574/2018.

Mahendra Singh, in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3585/2018 has prayed that F.I.R. No.240/2018 dated 07.06.2018 registered at Police

Station Mahuwa District Dausa for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 452 and 34 I.P.C. be quashed.

F.I.R. No.240/2018 was lodged by Ramavtar Singh, petitioner No.1 to S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3574/2018. In the said F.I.R.

Ramavtar Singh has stated that the family of Mahendra Singh had caused injuries to his family members.

Thus, it is apparent that it is a case of version and cross-version. The parties are neighbourers and over trivial issue a fight had ensued where

allegations were levelled against both the sides and in a fight headgear (dupta) of the lady has been pulled.

In the F.I.R. lodged by Mahendra Singh, allegations pertaining to offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. has also been levelled.

Today the parties are present in person before this Court. They have been identified by their respective Counsels.

The learned counsel appearing for the parties, on instructions from the parties, who are present in person before this Court, has submitted that the

compromise has been affected between the parties in order to promote everlasting peace, amity and harmony.

It is contended that since the parties are neighbourers and they want to live peacefully in future, hence, both the F.I.Rs., containing version and cross-

version be quashed so that the normal relations are restored between the parties.

The learned counsels appearing for the parties have jointly prayed that since the dispute has been amicably resolved, the criminal case pending

between the parties as well as impugned F.I.R. be quashed.

I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the contents of the instant petitions.

It has been often held by the Courts that hour of the compromise is the finest hour between the parties and the Court while exercising its inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings even qua non-compoundable offences.

Relying upon the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another [(2012) 10 S.C.C. 303], learned counsel for the parties have pleaded that this

Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to quash the criminal proceedings, which have been amicably resolved.

Considering the fact that parties have amicably resolved their dispute, the principle established by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh [supra]

and in the interest of justice, this Court, hereby, quash impugned First Information Report No.241/2018 dated 07.06.2018 registered at Police Station

Mahuwa District Dausa for offences punishable under Sections

341, 323 and 354 I.P.C. and under Section 3 (1) (w) (I) & 3 (1) (v) of the S.C. /S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and F.I.R. No.240/2018

dated 07.06.2018 registered at Police Station Mahuwa District Dausa for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 452 and 34 I.P.C., along with

all subsequent proceedings.

In view of above, both these petitions are disposed of.