[2025:RJ-JP:40212] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 10753/2022 Smt. Bhagwati Devi Wife of Shri Banwari Lal Saini, Resident of 55, Ashok Vihar, Opposite Varun Path, New Sanganer Road, Manyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Dr. Smt. Preksha Sharma D/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Resident of D-56, Chomu House, C-Scheme, Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9067/2022 Pawan Kumar Saini S/o Shri Banwari Lal Saini, Aged About 51 Years, R/o 55, Ashok Vihar, Opposite Varun Path, New Sanganer Road, Manyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. 2. Dr. Smt. Preksha Sharma D/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, R/o D-56, Chomu House, C-Scheme, P.S. Ashok Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9263/2022 Naresh Kumar S/o Bhagwana Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Tehsil- Udaipurwati, Ponkh, Jhunjhunun, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur City South Rajasthan. 3. The SHO, Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur, South. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Vidit Sharma [2025:RJ-JP:40212] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-10753/2022] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 03/10/2025 1. Petitioners are accused in FIR No. 878/2022 registered at Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City (South) for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, and by means of filing these three separate Criminal Misc. Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now 528 of the BNSS, 2023), have prayed to quash the impugned FIR, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. It has, inter alia, been stated that the impugned FIR came to be registered by the complainant raising a dispute in respect of plot and as per compromise, the possession of plot has been handed over to the complainant and petitioners do agree to have no nexus with the possession of the plot in question. 3. It has been stated that dispute between parties is private and personal in nature, relating to immovable property and same has been mutually settled by way of compromise entered into between parties. The original compromise dated 24.07.2024 has been placed on record, which has been attested by the parties, who are present in person and verified by their respective counsels. 4. It has jointly been submitted that the dispute between the parties has been mutually settled in terms of compromise, therefore, the impugned FIR may be quashed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows: [2025:RJ-JP:40212] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-10753/2022] “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. 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 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.” [2025:RJ-JP:40212] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-10753/2022] 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, this Court finds that the inter se dispute has been amicably settled down by the parties, therefore, it is insignificant to continue prosecution against the petitioners, hence, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present criminal misc. petitions. 8. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition are allowed and FIR No. 878/2022 registered at Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City (South) along with all consequential proceedings, is hereby quashed. 9. Stay applications and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /95-97