MUKESH KUMAR @ MUKKI v. STATE OF RAAJSTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: FARJAND ALI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2025-01-27. MUKESH KUMAR @ MUKKI v. STATE OF RAAJSTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2025:RJ-JD:5393] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Misc(Pet. ) No. 752/2025 1. Mukesh Kumar @ Mukki S/o Sh. Manohar Lal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ward No. 07, Hanumangarh Junction Teh. And Dist. Hanumangarh. 2. Sultan Mohammed S/o Samsudeen, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Gandhinagar Hanumangarh Junction Teh. And Dist. Hanumangarh. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Raajsthan, Through Pp 2. Anupam Kumar S/o Sh. Hari Narayan, R/o Near Uco Bank, Hanumangarh Town Teh. And Dist. Hanumangarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy. G. A. Mr. Zafar Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 27/01/2025 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. PC for quashing of proceedings in Criminal Original Case No. 206/2011 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 406, 467, 468 & 120B. 2.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute in between the parties has been resolved through an amicable settlement and now, there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings further. [2025:RJ-JD:5393] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-752/2025] 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant-respondent admits the fact of compromise and submits that he is willing if the FIR and the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. 5. Heard, perused the material available on record more particularly the police report, nature of allegation and the compromise deed executed in between the parties. The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same.
Some of the offence alleged in this matter are non-compoundable, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and energy that will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.
This court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and feels that where the dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are relatives, neighbours or having business relationship and which does not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with [2025:RJ-JD:5393] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-752/2025] a view to maintain harmonious relationships between the two sides, to end-up the dispute in between them permanently as well as for restitution of relationship, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings initiated thereto. 6. Here in this case, both the parties have submitted compromise before the learned Trial Court, the Trial Court vide its order dated 20. 12. 2024 verified the fact of compromise and thus, compounded the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. Since the remaining offences are not compoundable, therefore, proceeding has been kept pending for the said offence.
Though the offences are not compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is essentially in between the parties which is not affecting public peace and tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain the harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof. 7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in criminal original case No. 206/2011 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh are hereby quashed and set aside. The accused are acquitted from the charges and their bail bonds are discharged. 8. The stay petition also stands disposed of. (FARJAND ALI),J 286-Samvedana/-
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.