Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 800 (RAJ)

Tansukh v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-17

FARJAND ALI

body2025
Order : 1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of FIR No.273/2024 registered at the Police Station Kotwali, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 308 and 34 of the IPC. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner 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. A copy of the compromise deed executed between the parties has been placed on the record. 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. He submits that in a fit of anger an exaggerated version of the incident was narrated in the FIR and now under the mediation of the elderly persons, the parties have decided to bury the hatchet forever. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. 5. Heard, perused the material available on record more particularly the 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 offences 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. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. Non-compoundable offences are basically an obstruction in entering into compromise. In certain cases, the main offence is compoundable but the connected offences are not. In the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [ 2003 (4) SCC 675 ] the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that even though the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not apply to such offences which are not compoundable, it did not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, section 320 Cr.P.C. would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. In the nutshell, the Hon'ble Apex Court justified the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings to secure the ends of justice in view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, even where the offences were non-compoundable. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the offence under Section 308 IPC is a non-compoundable offence, there should be no impediment in quashing the FIR under this section, if the Court is otherwise satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. 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 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, though some of 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. 7. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR mentioned above, and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is exonerated from the offences. If he is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. The SHO concerned is directed to file a closure report with the concerned Judicial Magistrate within a period of one month from the date of receiving copy of this order. 8. The stay petition also stands disposed of.