HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7133/2024 1. Akhil Agarwal S/o Late Shri Vikram Agarwal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 71, Rishab Apartment, Green Colony, Moti Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj). 2. Sudeep Agarwal S/o Late Shri Vikram Agarwal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 71, Rishab Apartment, Green Colony, Moti Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj). ----Accused-Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor 2. Mr. Shankar Lal Vishnoi, M/s Rawat Misthan Bhandar, Ajmer Road, Sodala, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Muskan Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, P.P. Mr. Karan Sahagal, Advocate for Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 12/02/2025 : Instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred on behalf of the accused- petitioners with the prayer for quashing the impugned F.I.R. bearing No.311/2022 registered at Police Station, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur Metropolitan (South) for commission of offence punishable under Section 386 of I.P.C. alongwith all subsequent proceedings, in terms of compromise. In compliance of the order dt.17.01.2025 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has submitted the factual report, which is taken on record. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7133/2024] As per factual report, both the parties have amicably settled their disputes by way of compromise. The Investigating Officer has also verified the factum of compromise arrived between them. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners submits that the complainant-respondent & the petitioners have already entered into a compromise before the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that since the compromise has been arrived at between the parties by way of mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial against the petitioners, as the same may derail the compromise arrived at between them. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioners, whereas the learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ respondent No.2 has no objection, if the impugned F.I.R. is quashed, in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties. Having considered the overall facts & circumstances of the case & looking to the fact that the compromise has been arrived at between the petitioners & the respondent, this Court is of the view that when once the disputes have been settled by way of mutual compromise, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. Furthermore, keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, JT 2012 (9) S.C. 426, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed and the impugned No.311/2022 registered at Police Station, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7133/2024] Metropolitan (South) alongwith all subsequent proceedings, is, hereby, quashed, in terms of compromise. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J. Ashok-MAHESH ADWANI /129