[2025:RJ-JP:30791] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3821/2024 1. Neeraj Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Mukesh Kumar Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Lotwada, Police Station Baijupada, District Dausa State Of Rajasthan. 2. Lavkush Meena Son Of Shri Shyodan Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Shafipura, Police Station Bamanwas, District Gangapur City, Rajasthan. 3. Sachin Kumar Son Of Shri Nehru Lal Meena, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Meena Dant Ka Pura, Police Station Hindaun, District Karauli, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p., 2. Prahalad Kumar Chaturvedi Son Of Surendar Mohan, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Salavd, Thana Nadhoti, District Gangapur City Rajasthan (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Megha Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Shubham Kumar Tank, AAAG Mr. Vipul Kumar Jaiman HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 08/08/2025 1. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC has been filed by petitioners, seeking to quash the FIR No. 332/2024 registered at Police Station Kho Nagoriyan, District Jaipur City (East) for offences under Sections 364-A and 384 IPC qua petitioners, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties. [2025:RJ-JP:30791] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3821/2024] 2. It appears that the allegation of complainant is that he was kidnapped by petitioners for demanding ransom of Rs.7,000/- and he was released after some time. However, later on, complainant has filed his affidavit stating therein that the FIR was lodged under misconception of correct facts; neither he was kidnapped nor any ransom amount was demanded. 3. An original affidavit of complainant dated 29.05.2024 has been placed on record as Ann.2. Complainant is present in person, who is duly identified by his counsel and has no objection to quash the FIR and further investigation in the matter. 4. It has been submitted that since the complainant has mutually arrived at a settlement with the accused persons (petitioners herein), continuation of criminal proceedings would be a futile exercise and yield no positive result, rather would be in abuse of process of law. 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. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:30791] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3821/2024] 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]. 6. 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.” 7. In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, and considering the peculiar facts and [2025:RJ-JP:30791] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3821/2024] circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that it would not be apropos to continue the investigation and criminal proceedings in the present FIR, since complainant himself does not want to prosecute the petitioners further. Therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petition. 8. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and FIR No. 332/2024 registered at Police Station Kho Nagoriyan, District Jaipur City (East), alongwith all consequential proceedings qua petitioners, are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J S achin/243