[2025:RJ-JP:6361] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6454/2024 1. Mahendra Singh Meena S/o Shri Ghamandi Singh, R/o Vill. Bansroli, Tehsil Bayana District Bharatpur. 2. Mukesh Singh Soopa S/o Maharaj Singh, R/o Vill. Soopa At Present Soopa Market Kasba Bayana District Bharatpur. 3. Rajendra Prasad Bansal @ Rajji Thekedar S/o Gopaliram Bansal, R/o Near New Sabji Mandi, Kasba Bayana, District Bharatpur. 4. Ravi @ Pankaj Kumar Garg S/o Mahesh, R/o Tunda Show Room Kasba Bayana, District Bharatpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Mahesh Singh Meena S/o Mishrilal Meena, R/o Vill. Gawdi Meena Post Danalpura Tesil Shri Mahaveer Ji, District Karauli. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, P.P. Mr. Devanshu Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 13/02/2025 1. The instant criminal misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. for quashing of F.I.R. No.223/2023 registered at Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120B I.P.C. on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report of investigation No.145 dt.19.01.2025, which is taken on record. As per the factual report, a negative Final Report No.197 dt.18.12.2024 has been filed in the matter as the parties have [2025:RJ-JP:6361] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6454/2024] amicably settled their dispute by way of compromise and there remains no controversy between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute in between the parties has been resolved through an amicable settlement and now, there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings further. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant admits the factum of compromise and submits that he has no objection if the F.I.R. & the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made herein-above. 6. Heard. Perused the material available on record, more particularly the Police Report, nature of allegation(s) and the compromise deed executed in between the parties. 7. The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. The offence(s) alleged in this matter is non-compoundable, however Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. [2025:RJ-JP:6361] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6454/2024] 8. Here in this case, though the offences are non- compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is essential in between the parties which is not affecting public peace & tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the F.I.R. and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof. 9. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the F.I.R. mentioned above and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof, are hereby quashed & set aside. 10. Stay application, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J SAHIL SONI /69