[2025:RJ-JP:30327] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3414/2025 Vineet S/o Narendra Kumar Yogi, R/o A-6, Edan Garden, Angel Resort, Rajawas, Sikar Road Harmada, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Deependra S/o Madholal, R/o A-45, Nilgiri Colony, Road No. 9, P.S. Murlipura, Jaipur At Present R/o Thadi, Opp. Nath Samaj Sansthan Sector-7 Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandrahas Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Yogendra Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 06/08/2025 1. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by petitioner, seeking to quash the FIR No. 196/2025 registered at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur City (North) for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) & 352 of BNS and Section 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties. 2. It has jointly been submitted that the impugned FIR came to be lodged on the spur of moment on minor scuffle between the parties, however, with the indulgence of relatives and friends, misunderstanding between both parties has cleared and now the respondent No.2-complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner in the impugned FIR. A joint prayer has been made to close the FIR and proceedings thereupon in terms of the compromise dated 21.06.2025. 3. It has been submitted that the dispute between the parties is private in nature and do not affect the public at large. Once both [2025:RJ-JP:30327] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3414/2025] parties have mutually settled their inter se dispute/misunderstanding, there is no purpose to continue the proceedings of the impugned FIR, as same would yield no result. 4. Both parties are present in person, who are duly identified by their respective counsels. The compromise dated 21.06.2025 has been placed on record. 5. 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 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. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:30327] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3414/2025] 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]. 6. In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid case, and considering the nature of offence and the dispute which is private in nature between parties as much as has been amicably settled, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petition. 7. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and FIR No. 196/2025 registered at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur City (North), with all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /33