[2025:RJ-JP:659] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7367/2019 1. Rugha Ram S/o Sh. Sultan Ram, R/o B-142, Indra Nagar, Jhunjhunu 2. Anil Besarwal S/o Rugha Ram Besarwal, R/o 85-A, Goverdhan Colony, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Dr. Smt. Neelam Singh D/o Sh. Kamal Singh W/o Dr. Raj Kumar Besarwal, Resident Of 87, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Fatak, Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Smt. Sunita Bayal, S.H.O. Police Station Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar (East) Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripudaman Singh, Adv. & Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Adv. Petitioners-in-person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar, Adv. Respondent No.2-in-person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 06/01/2025 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.280/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 & 365 of IPC mainly on the ground that the parties have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute and now no dispute remains between them. [2025:RJ-JP:659] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7367/2019] 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties submitted that parties have settled their dispute amicably and complainant-respondent no.2 does not want to proceed further in this FIR. 3. On 11.12.2020, charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC was filed against the petitioners and Regular Criminal Case No.271619/2020 was registered and cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 406 of IPC. 4. During the pendency of this petition, complainant-respondent no.2 Dr. Smt. Neelam Singh settled the dispute with the petitioners amicably. Both the parties submitted an application along with compromise on 09.12.2024 before the learned trial Court, however, further proceedings pending before the learned trial Court have already been stayed by this Court, therefore, the compromise could not be attested. 5. Today petitioners and complainant-respondent no.2 are present before this Court and are duly identified by their counsels. 6. This Court has interacted with the complainant and she has admitted the factum of compromise and has stated that she has settled the dispute with the petitioners of her own free will. The matter pertains to matrimonial dispute. Petitioners are brother-in- law and father-in-law of complainant-respondent no.2, therefore, in the interest of justice and on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, proceedings pending before learned trial Court in Criminal Case No.271619/2020 arising out of FIR No.280/2019 [2025:RJ-JP:659] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7367/2019] registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) are liable to be quashed on the basis of compromise. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 8. In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal, this Court feels that in order to establish harmony between the petitioners and the complainant-respondent no.2 and give quietus to the litigation, it would be expedient that the impugned FIR and criminal proceedings are quashed. 9. The present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604], the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties although the offences are non-compoundable. 10. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and FIR No.280/2019 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaipur City (East) is quashed and all other proceedings arising out thereof are also quashed. Consequence to follow. 11. The stay application also stands disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J Mohita /322