HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7439/2025 Sandeep Arora S/o Shri Vijay Kumar Arora, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Gali No. 18, Near Panchayati Dharamshala, Nayi Abadi, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh, (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p 2. Ashish Agarwal S/o Ramratan Agagrwal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o D-80, Pawan Path, Hanumanngar, Vaishali Nagar, Presently Partner M/s Satyam Poly Plast Ltd., Jaipur Registered Office, G-A/41, V.k.i. Extension Road No. 14, Jaipur, Presently Corporate Office, Ca-10-09, Mahindra World City, Kalwad Police Station-Sez, Jaipur West. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anubhav Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP and Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Devanshu Sain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/11/2025 1. The instant misc. petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the FIR No.84/2025 registered with Police Station SEZ, Jaipur (West) under Sections 316(4), 316(5), 318(4) and 61(2) BNS, 2023 and the proceedings arising out of the said FIR. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after registration of the impugned FIR, the complainant has received the disputed amount qua the petitioner, hence the complainant (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7439/2025] does not want to prosecute the petitioner and accordingly, an application was submitted before the Trial Court and the same was partly allowed. Counsel submits that the Trial Court has granted permission to compound the offence under Section 318(4) BNS vide order dated 10.09.2025, but the permission has been declined for rest of the offences, since the other offences are non-compoundable. Counsel submits that the complainant has received the entire disputed amount from the petitioner and he does not want to prosecute the petitioner, hence the proceedings qua the petitioner be quashed on the basis of the compromise. 3. Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688. 4. The Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer, but the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant accepts the factum of compromise between the parties and he has no objection, in case, the proceedings qua the petitioner are quashed on the basis of the compromise, as the disputed amount qua the petitioner has been received. 5. Considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties and the fact that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and also applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra), this Court deems it just and proper (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7439/2025] to invoke inherent powers of this Court contained under Section 528 BNSS. 6. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. The petitioner is discharged from the charges under Sections 316(4), 316(5) and 61(2) BNS, 2023 and the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No.84/2025 registered with Police Station SEZ, Jaipur (West), qua the petitioner stand quashed. 7. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/112