[2024:RJ-JP:52705] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6310/2024 Robin S/o Sh. Rajesh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Chhonkarwada Kalan, Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur ( Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its P.p. 2. Victim, R/o ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Kumar Jangir for Mr. Rajesh Goswami For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP Mr. Dileep Kumar Mangawa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN J U D G M E N T DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:: 21 / 01/2025 1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the accused petitioner for quashing of FIR No.426/2024 registered at Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur for offences under Sections 332 (b), 64(1), 351 (2), 351 (3) BNS, 2023 on the ground of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the investigation, the petitioner and the complainant/victim have entered into a compromise. The written compromise entered between the parties is annexed with this petition as Annexure-2. Learned counsel argues that the victim and her husband themselves admitted before the Court that on account of some dispute, the impugned FIR has been lodged [2024:RJ-JP:52705] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6310/2024] against the petitioner and that they do not want to pursue the FIR any further against the petitioner. Reliance has been placed in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604], He thus, prays that the instant misc. petition may be accepted and the impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer by the petitioner’s counsel. He submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner that he committed rape upon the prosecutrix against her wishes. The petitioner is still absconding and has not appeared before the IO. Learned Public Prosecutor argues that it is not just a crime against an individual but it is a crime against entire society. He also submits that there is every possibility that either the victim has been won over or she has been pressurized to enter into compromise. He argues that in the investigation, which is still going on, offences under Sections 64(1), 351(2)/3 BNS have been found proved whereas offence under Section 332 (B) BNS has not been made out. He states that the compromise entered into between the parties is subject matter of investigation. He thus, opposes the prayer of quashing of FIR on the basis of compromise. He however, admits the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the victim/complainant has admitted the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties. He submits that the complainant/victim has entered into compromise [2024:RJ-JP:52705] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6310/2024] and that she does not want any action action against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that application to this effect has also been given to the IO of this case. 5. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 6. The victim has entered into compromise and she does not want to pursue the matter against the petitioner as the victim and her husband themselves appeared before Court and both clearly admitted that on account of some dispute with the accused petitioner, they have lodged the impugned FIR against him while exaggerating the dispute, and on the strength of this submission, quashing of the impugned FIR has been sought. Be that as it may. This is only one side of the case. There is yet another aspect of the matter which clearly restricts Courts in exercising their powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. so as to quash criminal proceedings on the strength of compromise in heinous offences like murder, rape, or dacoity. The Courts should not quash criminal proceedings based on a settlement between the victim and the accused because such crimes are considered offences against society and not just private disputes between individuals. The gravity of the crime takes precedence over a compromise reached between the parties involved. This Court finds worth in the submission of the learned State Counsel that the alleged offences are heinous offences and that they are not only against victim but they are against whole society. There can be no compromise in rape cases. A compromise entered between the parties cannot be construed as a leading factor based on which lesser punishment can be awarded. The alleged offence involved in the instant case is a non- [2024:RJ-JP:52705] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6310/2024] compoundable offence and it is an offence against the society and is not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle. As per the case diary, the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS (Section 164 Cr.P.C.) has clearly stated that the petitioner, who is her cousin, committed rape upon her against her wishes. In the investigation conducted so far, offences under Sections 64(1), 351(2)/3 BNS have been found proved against the petitioner and he is still absconding and has not appeared before the IO. The case does not cover under the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. (AIR 1992 SC 604). 7 Accordingly, for the reasons aforesaid, I am not inclined to accept the instant misc. petition. Accordingly, same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observation made hereinabove will not prejudice trial in any manner. Stay application also stands disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /752