[2025:RJ-JP:6618] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7273/2024 1. Jaikam Khan Son Of Rujdar Khan, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Laxmangarh, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan) 2. Sadda Bano Wife Of Jaikam Khan, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Laxmangarh, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan) 3. Sahabuddin Son Of Rustam, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Badi Masjid Ke Pass, Dadka, District Palwal, (Haryana) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. .......Respondent 2. Tejendra Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Mohanlal, Resident Of 4-Vejanti Vihar, E-Block Adarsh Nagar, Kalkamata Road, Near Navdeep School, Bhupalpura, Udaipur (Raj.) ----Complainant-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Swati Sharma on behalf of Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Complainant(s) For State : : Mr. Khizer Iqbal Khan Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 14/02/2025 1. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 has been filed by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside the FIR No.273/2023 (dated 11.07.2023) registered at Police Station Laxmangarh (Alwar), District Alwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 342, 323, 389 & 143 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out the impugned FIR, qua the present petitioners. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that a compromise has arrived at between the parties and they have [2025:RJ-JP:6618] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7273/2024] amicably settled their dispute, therefore, the FIR No.273/2023 (dated 11.07.2023) registered at Police Station Laxmangarh (Alwar), District Alwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 342, 323, 389 & 143 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out the impugned FIR, be quashed and set aside qua the present petitioners. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments and the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant acknowledges the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties and on instructions from the complainant, states that the complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR in question alongwith all consequential proceedings against qua the present accused- petitioners are quashed and set aside. 5. Considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 6. A bare perusal of the material on record shows that the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled by them. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 has observed as under:- “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 [2025:RJ-JP:6618] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7273/2024] 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. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the 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 wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the 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 the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the 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 the victim and the offender and the victim [2025:RJ-JP:6618] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7273/2024] 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 FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the 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.” 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014 AIR SCW 2065) has observed as under:- "21. However, we have some other cases decided by this Court commenting upon the nature of offence under Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case AIR 2013 SC 518) (supra), FIR was lodged under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 552 and 506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated and final report was presented to the Court under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. At that stage, settlement was arrived at between parties. The court accepted the settlement and quashed the proceedings, replying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., 2012 AIR SCW 5333, wherein the court had observed that inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are of wide plenitude (sic) with no statutory limitation and the guiding factors are: (1) to secure the needs of justice, or (2) to prevent abuse of process of the court. While doing so, commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the court observed: "Since the offences involved in this case are of a personal nature and are not offences against the society, we had enquired with learned counsel appearing for the parties whether there is any possibility of a settlement. We are happy to note that due to efforts made by learned counsel, parties [2025:RJ-JP:6618] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7273/2024] have seen reason and have entered into a compromise." This Court, thus, treated such offences including one under section 307, IPC were of a personal nature and not offences against the society." 9. In view of the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties, it would be a futile exercise to continue the criminal proceedings because ultimately, now there are bleak chances of conviction in the matter. 10. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the FIR No.273/2023 (dated 11.07.2023) registered at Police Station Laxmangarh (Alwar), District Alwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 342, 323, 389 & 143 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out the impugned FIR, are required to be quashed ans set aside in the interest of justice and so also to relieve the trial Courts from excessive workload by putting an end to the proceedings of cases where it is felt that because of compromise between the parties now there are bleak chances of conviction. 11. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed. FIR No.273/2023 (dated 11.07.2023) registered at Police Station Laxmangarh (Alwar), District Alwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 342, 323, 389 & 143 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out the impugned FIR qua the present petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside. 12. Stay application as well as pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /53