[2025:RJ-JP:24278] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3738/2025 1. Ramjilal S/o Bheruram, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Dhani Bhangar Ki, Taliyara, Village- Panchayat Bagawas- Chorasi, Police Station- Bhavaru, District- Kotputali- Behror. 2. Madanlal S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Dhani Bhangar Ki, Taliyara, Village- Panchayat Bagawas- Chorasi, Police Station- Bhavaru, District- Kotputali- Behror. 3. Omprakash S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Dhani Bhangar Ki, Taliyara, Village- Panchayat Bagawas- Chorasi, Police Station- Bhavaru, District- Kotputali- Behror. 4. Haribai S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Dhani Bhangar Ki, Taliyara, Village- Panchayat Bagawas- Chorasi, Police Station- Bhavaru, District- Kotputali- Behror. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through P.P. 2. Gita Devi W/o Madan Lal Yadav, R/o Dhani Bhangaro Ki Tan Taliyara, Viratnagar, Bhabru, Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anish Bhadala For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, Dy. G.A. Mr. Rajat Singh Solanki HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 02/07/2025 1. By way of filing this miscellaneous petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S., the petitioners have prayed for quashing one FIR bearing [2025:RJ-JP:24278] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-3738/2025] No.69/2025 registered at Police Station-Bhabru, District-Kotputli Behror for the alleged offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 74, 85, 352, 351(2) & 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023. 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR in question has been lodged by the complainant after 20 years of marriage on account of some mistaken notion of facts and confusion and therefore, after lodging the FIR, the complainant has entered into compromise with the petitioner on 30.05.2025 in which she has stated that she has not been assaulted by the petitioner nor he has demanded any dowry from the complainant. 3. Petitioner No.2 as well as complainant both are present before the Court. 4. The complainant along with her counsel has admitted that the factum of entering into compromise between the parties and have submitted that they do not want to prosecute the petitioners. 5. In view of above, where parties have entered into compromise, it would not be in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution in pursuant to impugned FIR. Hence, the impugned FIR No.69/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. 6. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition shall be disposed of in view of above. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/114