High CourtsSingle Bench

Smt Sunita @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 7 August 2018 · Citation: (2018) 08 RAJ CK 0199

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4275 of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

60 paragraphs · 1,070 words

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.291/2018 dated 6.6.2018 registered at Police Station

Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur City (North) for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.

In the present petition, quashing of FIR has been sought on the basis of compromise. It is alleged by the complainant Raj Kumar Nitharwal that the

petitioner Smt. Sunita alongwith her husband Alok Katewa had duped him, his brother Hari Singh and Mahesh Baghala on the pretext that they shall

obtain Government service for them.

This Court on 3.8.2018 had passed the following order:-

“Raj Kumar Nitharwal, Mahesh Badhala and Hari Singh are present in the court. They were allegedly duped by the petitioner. They have stated

that now a compromise has been affected between the parties.

At the first instance, statement of Raj Kumar Nitharwal, Mahesh Badhala and Hari Singh be recorded by Dy. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court upon

identification by their counsel.

List this case on 7.8.2018.

Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to call the investigating officer in this Court on the next date of hearing.

Considering that Mr. Yunus Khan, learned counsel for the respondent and two accused present in the court have vouchsafed the factum of

compromise, it is ordered that the proceedings arising out of impugned FIR shall be kept in abeyance till next date fixed before this Court.

A copy of this order under the seal and signature of the Court Master be handed over to the learned Public Prosecutor for onward transmission and

necessary compliance.â€​

In pursuance of the said order, statement of complainant Raj Kumar Nitharwal, Hari Singh and Mahesh Baghala have been recorded by Dy. Registrar

(Judicial) of this Court. The said statements are taken on record and for ready reference are reproduced below:-

eSa egsâ€​k c/kkyk iq= Jh yky pUn c/kkyk] vk;q 21 o""kZ] tkfr tkV] fuoklh& VkfV;kckl] jkeiqjk t;iqj] ftyk&t;iqjA

'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwW fd vkyksd dVsok ,ao mudh iRuh lquhrk nsoh us esjs ls lfpoky; esa pijklh dh ukSdjh yxokus ds uke ij ,d yk[k iSrkfyl gtkj :i;s

uxn fnukad 04-05-2017 dks fy;s FksA ysfdu bUgksaus esjh ukSdjh ugha yxok;hA bl ckr ls ihfMr gksdj ejs s ikik ds nksLr ds yMds jktdqekj us bu

nksuks ds f[kykQ ,d ,QvkbZvkj 291@2018 fo|k/kj uxj Fkkus esa ntZ djok;h FkhA orZeku esa bu nksuks us eq>s ,d yk[k iSrkfyl gtkj :i;s uxn ns fn;s

gSA vc esjk vkyksd dVsok ,ao mldh iRuh lquhrk nsoh ds lkFk jkthukek gks pqdk gSA vc eSa buds f[kykQ vkxs vkSj dksbZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha

pkgrk gwWA eq>s vkSj dqN ugha dguk gSA

uksV%& xokg dk c;ku ejs s funsZ’ku esa mlds dgs vuqlkj Vad.kdrkZ }kjk dEI;wVj ij Vafdr fd;k x;k] ftls xokg dks ik;k x;k rks

mlus mDr dFkuksa dks lqu o le> dj lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;kAÂ

 vkj0vks0,.M ,0lh0

 fMIVh jftLVªkj ¼U;kf;d½

eSa gfjflag fuBkjoky iq= Jh ckcwyky fuBkjoky] vk;q 19 o""kZ] tkfr tkV] fuoklh& okMZ ua0&6] iqtkjh dk ckl] rglhy&[k.Msyk] ftyk&lhdj gky fuoklh&

ts&1@1] ,yvkbZlh ¶ySV] lSaDVj&2] fo|k/kj uxj] t;iqj] ftyk&t;iqj

'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwW fd vkyksd dVsok ,ao mudh iRuh lquhrk nsoh us esjs ls t;iqj eSVªks esa ukSdjh yxokus ds uke ij ikap yk[k rhl gtkj :i;s uxn

fnukad 04-05-2017 dks fy;s FksA ysfdu bUgksaus esjh ukSdjh ugha yxok;hA bl ckr ls ihfM+r gksdj esjs HkkbZ jktdqekj us bu nksuks ds f[kykQ ,d

,QvkbZvkj 291@2018 fo| k/kj uxj Fkkus esa ntZ djok;h FkhA orZeku esa bu nksuks us eq>s ikap yk[k rhl gtkj :i;s uxn  ns fn;s gSA vc esjk vkyksd

dVsok ,ao mudh iRuh lquhrk nsoh ds lkFk jkthukek gks pqdk gSA vc eSa buds f[kykQ vkxs vkSj dksbZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrk gwWA eq>s

vkSj dqN ugha dguk gSA

uksV%& xokg dk c;ku ejs s funsZâ€​ku esa mlds dgs vuqlkj Vad.kdrkZ }kjk dEI;wVj ij Vfadr fd;k x;k] ftls xokg dks ik;k x;k rks

mlus mDr dFkuksa dks lqu o le> dj lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;kA

 vkj0vks0,.M ,0lh0

fMIVh jftLVªkj ¼U;kf;d½

eSa jktdqekj fuBkjoky iq= Jh ckcwyky fuBkjoky] vk;q 24 o""kZ] tkfr tkV] fuoklh& okMZ ua0&6] iqtkjh dk ckl] rglhy&[k.Msyk] ftyk&lhdj gky

fuoklh& ts&1@1] ,yvkbZlh ¶ySV] lSaDVj&2] fo|k/kj uxj] t;iqj] ftyk&t;iqj

'kiFk iwoZd c;ku djrk gwW fd vkyksd dVsok ,ao mudh iRuh lquhrk nsoh us esjs ls xzkelsod dh ukSdjh yxokus ds uke ij 05-2017 dks fy;s FksA ysfdu bUgksus esjh ukSdjh ugha yxok;hA bl ckr ls ihfMr gksdj eSaus bu nksuks ds f[kykQ ,d ,QvkbZvkj 291@2018 fo|k/kj uxj

Fkkus esa ntZ djok;h FkhA orZeku esa bu nksuks us eq>s ipkl gtkj :i;s uxn ,ao nks yk[k :i;s dk pSd ¼ua0 000095½ ,pMh,Qlh cSad dk fnukad 0808-

2018 dks Hkqxrku dk ns fn;k gSA vc ejs k vkyksd dVsok ,ao mudh iRuh lquhrk nsoh ds lkFk jkthukek gks pqdk gSA vc eSa buds f[kykQ vkxs vkSj

dksbZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrk gwWA eq>s vkSj dqN ugha dguk gSA

uksV%& xokg dk c;ku ejs s funsZ’ku esa mlds dgs vuqlkj Vad.kdrkZ }kjk dEI;wVj ij Vfadr fd;k x;k] ftls xokg dks ik;k x;k rks

mlus mDr dFkuksa dks lqu o le> dj lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;kAÂ

 vkj0vks0,.M ,0lh0

fMIVh jftLVªkj ¼U;kf;d½

Mr. Yunus Khan, the learned counsel has caused appearance for the complainant Raj Kumar Nitharwal, Hari Singh and Mahesh Baghala.

In pursuance of the order dated 3.8.2018, the investigating officer Sub Inspector, Satyaveer Singh, P.S. Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (North) is present in

the court. He has stated that only above three persons were duped by the petitioner and her husband and no other person was cheated.

Annexure-2 is the compromise entered between the parties which has been placed on record.

The 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. Complainant who is present in the court has submitted

that he no longer intend to pursue the FIR.

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.

Consequently, taking totality of circumstances, and ratio of law laid in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the present petition is accepted and the

impugned FIR along with all subsequent proceedings is quashed.