[2025:RJ-JP:39914] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1656/2023 Sandeep Purohit S/o Shri Vinod Purohit, Aged About 47 Years, Resident of Andhed Farm House, Police Station Taleda, District Bundi (Raj) ----Petitioner/accused Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ___Respondent 2. Satyaprakash S/o Sobhag Chand Jadiya, Resident Of 7, Anupam Nagar Sofia School Ke Pass, Jaipur Road, Ajmer Road, Police Station Civil Lines, Ajmer At Present General Manager, Sbbj Branch Indra Market Bundi ----Respondent/complainant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Pareek, Senior Adv. with Mr. S.L. Sharma, Advocate & Mr. Nachiketa Pareek, Advocate Mr. Prem Chand Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Lal Meena, in person Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 26/09/2025 Instant revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner against the judgment dt.21.10.2023 passed by the Court of ld. Sessions Judge, Bundi, in Criminal Appeal No.162/2022, whereby the judgment dt.03.09.2022 passed by Court of ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, in Criminal Regular Case No.789/2023 was upheld and the petitioner was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. & sentenced to undergo three years simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:39914] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1656/2023] Today, the petitioner & complainant, namely Mr. Bharat Lal Meena, A.G.M., S.B.I. RACPC Tonk Bundi are present-in-person before this Court & their signatures have been obtained on the order-sheet of the Court. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner submits that in the present case, on the basis of a written complaint submitted by Shri Satyaprakash, Chief Manager, SBBJ Branch, Indira Market, Bundi, an F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that during pendency of present revision petition, the complainant & the petitioner have entered into an amicable settlement. The petitioner has paid the entire due amount & the bank has issued No Dues Certificate in favour of the petitioner. Counsel also submits that since the settlement/compromise has been arrived at between the parties by way of mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the case against the petitioner, as the same may derail the compromise arrived at between them. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions made herein-above, whereas the complainant (Bharat Lal Meena) who is present-in-person has no objection, if the impugned judgments are quashed & set aside on the basis of compromise. In this regard, an application bearing Inward No.397955/2025 dt.26.09.2025 has also been filed by the petitioner praying therein that the while taking on record the compromise, the present petition may be disposed of on the basis of compromise. In support of their submissions, learned counsel appearing for the parties, have also placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & [2025:RJ-JP:39914] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1656/2023] Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296] & Narinder Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 CRLR (SC) 351. As per compromise, both the parties have entered into a compromise & the dispute between them has been amicably settled. The petitioner has paid the entire due/loan amount of the bank for which alleged F.I.R. was lodged & the bank has issued No Dues Certificate in favour of petitioner. The complainant does not wish to continue the matter & has no objection, if the impugned judgments are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him on the basis of compromise. Having considered the overall facts & circumstances of the case & looking to the fact that the compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner & 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 case pending. 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/case pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023. Thus, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court deems it just & proper to acquit the petitioner from the charges & allow the revision petition filed by the petitioner. The compromise/settlement is taken on record. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed on the basis of compromise. The impugned judgments are quashed & set aside [2025:RJ-JP:39914] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1656/2023] and the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The bail bonds, if any, stand discharged. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J. ASHOK