HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1994/2023 1. Tejpal Singh Rathore S/o Rajpal Singh Rathore, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Plot No. 230, Bjs Colony, Pawta C Road, Jodhpur. Currently Residing At- Plot No. 69, Shekhawat Colony, Near Universe Public School, Sirsi Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Rajpal Singh Rathore S/o Sumer Singh, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Plot No. 230, Bjs Colony, Pawta C Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 3. Santosh Kanwar W/o Rajpal Singh Rathore, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Plot No. 230, Bjs Colony, Pawta C Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 4. Reena Kanwar W/o Mohan Singh Rajawat, Aged About 41 Years, R/o F-459, Chaudhary Chowk, Rajkiya Awas, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Beena Kanwar W/o Charanjeet Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 36 Years, R/o House No. 77, Ward No. 26, Todi Nagar, Sikar, Rajasthan. 6. Mohan Singh Rajawat S/o Ganpat Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o F-459, Chaudhary Chowk, Rajkiya Awas, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 7. Charanjeet Singh Shekhawat S/o Bajrang Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o C-177, Todi Nagar, Sanwali Road, Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Pushpa Kanwar W/o Tejpal Singh Rathore, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Plot No. 230, Bjt Colony, Pawta C Road, Jodhpur, Currently Residing At- Bhojpura Kala, Jobner, Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Singh for Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Mishra Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1994/2023] JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/05/2026 1. By way of filing the instant petition, a prayer has been made to quash the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No.190/2022, registered at Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the instant petition, the parties have settled their dispute by entering into a compromise with certain terms and conditions. Learned counsel submits that one of the conditions of the compromise is that the complainant would not raise any objection, in case the proceedings of the instant case are quashed in terms of the aforesaid compromise. 3. The complainant has put appearance in-person and she has been duly identified by her counsel. She admits the factum of compromise with the petitioners and she submits that she has no objection, in case the proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. are quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as by counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and looking to the fact that the dispute appears to be matrimonial in nature and now the parties have settled their (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1994/2023] dispute by entering into compromise and the complainant does not wish to prosecute the petitioner, hence, by applying the principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 & State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, this Court deems it just and appropriate to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 4. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No.190/2022, registered at Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur (Rural), stand quashed and set-aside in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 6. The compromise deed is ordered to be retained on record. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J ANMOL /100