Allow to cancel non -composite offenses such as kidnapping, theft based on commitment will establish ‘dangerous precedent’: Rajasthan HC

While refusing to annul a signed by crimes not composed of kidnapping, theft after the parties had entered into a friendly agreement, the Superior Court of Rajasthan stressed that allowing the annulment of such cases based on the commitment would undermine the purpose of criminal criminals and criminals.

In doing so, the Court stressed that the composition of such crimes would establish a “dangerous precedent” in which the defendant can evade justice through monetary settlements.

Farjand Ali Justice He noted that the investigation in the matter had established a “cousin facie” case against the defendant in which the accusations were backed by medical evidence and witness testimonies. Said:

“The mere fact that the plaintiff has entered an agreement with the accused does not acquit them of their criminal responsibility, especially when the crimes are not compounds. Allowing to cancel such cases on the basis of the commitment would undermine the very purpose of criminal and emboldener law to criminals … crimes under sections 365 and 382 CPI are divided into the category of non -compound crimes according to section 320 CRPC. The reason behind this classification is to ensure that serious crimes that affect public order, personal freedom and security are not committed to private settlements. The compound of such crimes would establish a dangerous precedent, allowing accused persons to evade justice through monetary or coercive tactical settlements. The Supreme Court, in several judgments, has argued that the courts must be cautious while annuling the criminal procedures that involve heinous crimes, particularly those that affect society in general“

Highlighting that one of the defendants in the matter was a “proclaimed criminal,” the court said that his repeated evasion of the law strengthened the need for an exhaustive judicial process.

According to the FIR, the defendant was kidnapped by the pistol tip in his vehicle and taken to a remote place in which he was assaulted and stolen from his gold chain. The FIR was lodged in sections 365 (kidnapping or kidnapped with intention in secret and unfairly to limit the person), 382 (theft), 323 (voluntarily causing pain) and 34 (common intention) of IPC.

The Court declared that the accused people had acted with a criminal intention, and the mere fact of entering an agreement with the plaintiff did not acquit them from their criminal responsibility, in the light of such serious accusations that were not compensable and cousin facie established during the investigation.

The Court also stated that the crime of kidnapping or kidnapping under section 365, IPC implied an infraction of personal freedom and represented the threat to security, and such severity of the crime that impacted the well -being and safety of the victims did not make the crime not compound.

Similarly, in relation to the crime of theft after making the preparations to cause death, the restriction pain under section 382, ​​it was argued that the element of violence or premeditated coercion aggravated the crime beyond the simple theft and did not compete.

Consequently, it was argued that allowing the FIR to be annulled, for crimes that are “of a serious, recognizable and non -compound nature”, based on the commitment would establish little healthy precedents and would defeat the purpose of criminal justice.

The court thus dismisses the plea.

Qualification: Bhajan Lal and Anr. V State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LIVELAW (RAJ) 110

Click here to read/download order