[2025:RJ-JP:6472] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2681/2024 Tejesh Suman Son Of Mohan Lal Mali, Resident Of Lanka Colony, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Hariram Airwal Son Of Babulal, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Natraj Nagar Baran, District Baran (Raj.) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1307/2023 Ramanand Sharma Son Of Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Edan Garden, Rajawas Jaipur The Then Commissioner, Municipal Council, Baran, Presently Posted As Dig Stamp-Ii Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Hari Ram Erwal Son Of Babulal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Natraj Nagar, Baran, District Baran Presently Holding The Office Counsellor, Ward No. 5, Municipal Council, Baran (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Nagayach Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P. Mr. Dhanna Ram HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 13/02/2025 1. The instant criminal misc. petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No.295/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B I.P.C. [2025:RJ-JP:6472] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2681/2024] 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report of investigation No.1348 dt.07.07.2024, which is taken on record. As per the factual report, the complainant, namely Hariram Airwal, has himself submitted a compromise before the concerned Investigating Officer and requested to close the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits 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. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant admits the factum of compromise and submits that he has no objection if the F.I.R. & the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made herein-above. 6. Heard. Perused the material available on record, more particularly the Police Report, nature of allegation(s) and the compromise deed executed in between the parties. 7. The parties have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. The offence(s) 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 [2025:RJ-JP:6472] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2681/2024] 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. 8. Here in this case, though the offences are non- compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is essential in between the parties which is not affecting public peace & tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the F.I.R. and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof. 9. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and the F.I.R. mentioned above and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof, are hereby quashed & set aside. 10. Stay application(s), also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J SAHIL SONI /160-161