[2025:RJ-JP:25375] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3773/2025 1. Chetram S/o Kajodmal Meena, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Shafipura Thana Bamanwas District Sawai Madhopur. 2. Leelawati Alias Leela Bai W/o Rameshwar D/o Moolchand Meena, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Shafipura Thana Bamanwas District Sawai Madhopur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Nemichand S/o Natharam Meena, R/o Shafipura Thana Bamanwas District Sawai Madhopur. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain For Complainant(s) For State : Ms. Rekha Arora Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 09/07/2025 1. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the criminal proceedings of the Criminal Appeal No.04/2025 titled as Chetram & Ors. Vs Nemichand & Ors. pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, on the grounds of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.1-Chetram and petitioner No.2 Leelawati were convicted for offence under Section 365 of IPC by the learned Trial Court. It is argued that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 are family members and now they have settled their dispute amicably. It is also contended that there are no criminal antecedents against [2025:RJ-JP:25375] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3773/2025] the petitioners, therefore, in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioners may be acquitted for offence under Section 365 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel Ms. Rekha Arora has put in appearance on behalf of complainant-respondent No.1 and concedes that petitioners and complainant/respondent No.1 have arrived at amicable settlement and complainant has submitted a written compromise before the Appellate Court on 05.05.2025, which bears the signatures of both the parties. 4. The complainant-Nemichand is also present in person before the Court and concedes that if the proceedings against the petitioners are quashed then he has no objection. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal petition and has contended that petitioners were convicted for offence under Section 365 of IPC, therefore, considering the gravity of the offence the criminal proceedings pending before the Appellate Court did not liable to be quashed. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. Parties are close family members and they have arrived at compromise. The said compromise has been duly submitted before the learned Appellate Court and the same has taken on record. The certified copy of compromise which is available on record. Complainant/respondent No.1 is present in person and has admitted the fact that he has entered into compromise with the petitioners and the compromise deed bear his signature along with signatures of the petitioners. Therefore, considering the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court deems it just and [2025:RJ-JP:25375] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3773/2025] proper to quash the criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Appeal No.04/2025 titled as Chetram & Ors. Vs Nemichand & Ors. 7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is hereby disposed of. 8. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J HEENA/175