[2025:RJ-JP:35384] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2787/2024 1. Anil Kumar Meena S/o Ramavtar Meena, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Ramavtar Meena S/o Gyarsi Lal, R/o Khalakho, District Dausa 2. Dilraj Meena S/o Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Suresh Chand Meena S/o Shri Ramjilal R/o Khalakho, District Dausa 3. Lokesh Kumar Meena S/o Kamlesh Meena, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Kamlesh Meena S/o Ramjilal R/o Khalakho, District Dausa 4. Sanjay S/o Shri Dharampal @ Dharmya, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Khairpur, P.s. Baijupada, District Dausa (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor 2. Ramswarup Saini S/o Bhonri Lal Saini, R/o Village Dhand, P.s. Baijupada, District Dausa 3. Banwari Saini S/o Bhonri Lal Saini, R/o Village Dhand, P.S. Baijupada, District Dausa ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohar Pal Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 03/09/2025 1. Instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by and on behalf of accused-petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the FIR No.78/2024 registered at Police Station Baijupada, District Dausa for offences under Sections 323, 341, [2025:RJ-JP:35384] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2787/2024] 379 and 34 IPC qua petitioners, on the basis of compromise arrived at between complainant and victim with petitioners. 2. On behalf of respondents No.2 and 3-complainant and victim, counsel has put in appearance and states that both parties are present in person and do admit the factum of settlement arrived at with the petitioners and do not want any further proceedings in the impugned FIR and agreeable to quash the same. 3. This Court vide order dated 09.05.2024, directed the complainant and victim to appear before the Investigating Officer to depose their statements in order to verify the factum of compromise. 4. It has, inter alia, been submitted by counsel for both parties that complainant and victim had appeared before the Investigating Officer and have verified the factum of compromise. Their statements are taken record. 5. The allegation in the impugned FIR against petitioners is to intercept the complainant and victim while plying on motorcycle and to snatch some money. The dispute is inter se and private between the parties, which has been stated to be resolved and it has been submitted that accepting the compromise does not affect the public at large. The original affidavits executed by the complainant and victim have been placed on record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows: “57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different [2025:RJ-JP:35384] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2787/2024] from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.” The above principles of law have been followed and reiterated by the Apex Court, recently, in case of Naushey Ali and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2025) 4 SCC 78]. [2025:RJ-JP:35384] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2787/2024] 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [(2022) 14 SCC 531] observed as follows: “12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non- compoundable.” 8. In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, and considering the nature of offences and the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled between parties, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petition. 9. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and FIR No.78/2024 registered at Police Station Baijupada, District Dausa with all consequential benefits, are hereby dropped/ quashed. 10. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /71