[2025:RJ-JP:13438] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1634/2025 Julfikar @ Javed Irani S/o Shri Jaced Sarwan Irani, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Indra Nagar, Gali Number-4, Ambivali Atali, Police Station Khadakpada, Kalyan, Mumbai (Maharashtra) At Present R/o At House No. 78 Irani Basti, Amar Colony, Karondh, Police Station Nishatpura, District Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor 2. Sanchit Bagra S/o Shri Akalanka Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o H.no. 27, Income Tax Colony, Suraj Nagar, West Civil Line, Jaipur, Sodala, Jaipur City (South), Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, Public Prosecutor Mr. Kailash Kumawat, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 25/03/2025 : Instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred on behalf of the accused- petitioner praying therein for quashing the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Case No.552/2024 arising out of F.I.R. No.0076/2024 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur Metropolitan (North) for offences punishable under Sections 420 & 379 of I.P.C. in terms of compromise. In the present case, other co-accused persons have already been released on bail by ld. Court below and the present petitioner is in judicial custody since 23.05.2024. [2025:RJ-JP:13438] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1634/2025] In the present case, during trial, the accused-petitioner and the complainant-respondent had entered into a compromise & the dispute between them had amicably been settled. The parties moved a compromise application through advocate before the ld. trial Court for attesting the compromise for offences punishable under Sections 420, 379, 419, 401 & 120-B of I.P.C. The trial Court, vide its order dated 03.03.2025 had attested the compromise & acquitted the accused- petitioner for offence punishable under Section 419, 420 & 379 of I.P.C. but kept pending the trial for offences punishable under Sections 401 & 120-B of I.P.C. as the same are non-compoundable. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has argued that since the complainant-respondent & the petitioner have already entered into a compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 419, 420 & 379 of I.P.C., there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the remaining alleged offences. It is also argued that since the compromise has been arrived at between the parties by way of mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial against the petitioner for the remaining alleged offences as the same may derail the compromise arrived at between them. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner, whereas the learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ respondent has no objection, if the proceedings qua the remaining alleged offences are dropped against the petitioner, as the parties have already entered into a compromise. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case & looking to the fact that since the compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner & the respondent, there is no possibility of the [2025:RJ-JP:13438] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1634/2025] petitioner being convicted in the cases pending against him before the Court concerned. Further when once the disputes have been settled by way of mutual compromise, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, JT 2012 (9) S.C. 426, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed in terms of compromise. The criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Case No.552/2024 alongwith impugned F.I.R. No.0076/2024 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur Metropolitan (North) are, hereby, quashed qua the present petitioner in terms of aforesaid compromise. The petitioner is said to be in judicial custody. He shall be released from the prison forthwith, if not required in any other case. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK-rishi