[2025:RJ-JP:8601] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 765/2024 Praveen Khatik S/o Shree Sampat, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Kotdhi Police Station Roopgangarh, District Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 242/2024 Nitesh Daroga S/o Khansingh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Sundar Nagar, Chamdaghar, P.s. Gandhi Nagardistrict Ajmer (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 252/2024 Munna Kha @ Munna Khan S/o Imauddin, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Sursara, Police Station Roopangarh, District Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Dadhich Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 25/02/2025 1. These criminal revision petitions were preferred by the petitioners accused Praveen Khatik, Nitesh Daroga and Munna Kha [2025:RJ-JP:8601] (2 of 4) [CRLR-765/2024] @ Munna Khan after dismissal of criminal appeal Nos.57/2019 and 60/2019 by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kishangarh, District Ajmer on 07.12.2023 affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence under Sections 454 and 380 IPC. 2. On basis of FIR No.39/2017 registered at PS Madanganj, District Ajmer, a charge-sheet filed against all three petitioners under Sections 457, 380 and 120B of IPC. After full trial, these petitioners were convicted under Sections 380 and 454 IPC in criminal case No.622/2017 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kishangarh, District Ajmer. On an appeal the conviction was maintained but sentence was modified and each of petitioners was sentenced for a period of three years with fine of ₹10,000/- under Section 454 IPC and two years with fine of ₹5,000/- under Section 380 IPC. 3. During pendency of these revision petitions, a compromise was filed on record and same was verified by the Registrar (Judicial) on 02.09.2024. The proceedings could not be quashed as offence under Sections 380 and 454 IPC was non- compoundable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring order dated 03.01.2024 in case of S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4046/2022 (Mukesh Vs. State of Raj. and Anr.) [RHC-Jaipur], and judgments in case of Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2021 (11) Scale 555 = 2021 INSC 568 and Rasida Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. 2872/2018) [Patna High Court], submits that where the parties have compromise the matter in non-compoundable cases, then the proceedings may be quashed [2025:RJ-JP:8601] (3 of 4) [CRLR-765/2024] by this Hon'ble Court. He further submits that the parties have settled their dispute and complainant-victim has no objection in closing the matter. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material placed on record. 7. Herein, the petitioners were convicted under Sections 454 and 380 IPC on complaint of complainant Barat Singh who filed a compromise on record and same was attested by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. 8. Since the matter is non-compoundable and as per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), non-compoundable criminal case of pre dominantly private nature can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC even if compromise is reached after conviction. 9. Similarly, a co-ordinate Bench has also quashed charge under Section 498A of IPC in case of Mukesh Vs. State of Raj. and Anr. (supra). A similar type of order was passed by a co- ordinate Bench of Patna High Court in case of Rasida Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar (supra). 10. Herein, the material clearly indicates that the parties have compromised the matter but the offence is non-compoundable. Therefore, we are deciding revision petitions filed after conviction by two Courts below. 11. After considering overall circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to maintain conviction under Sections 454 and 380 of [2025:RJ-JP:8601] (4 of 4) [CRLR-765/2024] IPC but in the interest of justice appropriate to reduce the sentence to already undergone. 12. In view of aforesaid, the conviction under Sections 454 and 380 IPC is hereby affairmed and maintained but sentence awarded by learned Appellate Court on 07.12.2023 is modified and reduced to already undergone by the petitioners. 13. The matter stands closed after reduction of sentence. The petitioners accused are not required to serve sentence in any manner. 14. In view of aforesaid, all three revision petitions stand disposed of with pending application(s), if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/214 to 216