[2025:RJ-JP:8576] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 402/2025 1. Ram Ratan @ Ram Saini S/o Shri Narayan Saini, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No. 101, Maliyo Ka Mohalla, Near Tejaji Mandir, P.s. Jainsinghpura Khor, Jaipur (North). (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jaipur). 2. Kishan Lal Alias Kishan Saini S/o Shri Chotu Ram Saini, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Plot No. 269, Chawand Mata Mandir, Maliyo Ka Mohalla, P.s. Jainsinghpura Khor, Jaipur (North). ( Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jaipur). 3. Vishal Mehra S/o Shri Madan Lal Kir, Aged About 23 Years, R/o House No. 97, Vatika Road, Balaji Dham, Sanganer, Jaipur. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Govind Singh Chandrawar S/o Late Shri Mannu Singh, R/o 5, Sharda Colony, Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur City North. 3. Vikram Singh S/o Late Shri Mannu Singh, R/o 5, Sharda Colony, Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur City North. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Tiwari, Public Prosecutor Mr. Amit Dadhich, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 25/02/2025 Instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred on behalf of the accused- petitioners seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.337/2024 registered at Police Station, Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur City (North) for offences punishable under Sections 109 (1), 126 (2), 309 (5) & 3 (5) of B.N.S. & under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, alongwith all subsequent proceedings [2025:RJ-JP:8576] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-402/2025] pending before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in terms of compromise. In the present case, during trial, the present petitioners and the respondents No.2 & 3 had entered into a compromise and the dispute between them had amicably been settled. The parties moved an application alongwith the compromise before the ld. trial Court for attesting the compromise for offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 126(2), 309(5) r/w Section 3(5) of B.N.S. The trial Court, vide its order dated 10.01.2025, had attested the compromise & acquitted the petitioners only for offence punishable under Section 126(2) of B.N.S., as the same is compoundable and ordered to proceed further qua offences punishable under Sections 109 (1) & 309(5) r/w Section 3 (5) of B.N.S., as the same are non-compoundable. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners has argued that the respondent Nos.2 & 3 & the present petitioners have already entered into a compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioners have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 126(2) of B.N.S., there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the remaining offences. It is further argued that since the compromise has been arrived at between the parties by way of mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial against the petitioners for the remaining offences, as the same may derail the compromise arrived at between them. 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 & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296] & Narinder Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Another, 2014 CRLR (SC) 351. [2025:RJ-JP:8576] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-402/2025] Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioners, whereas the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 has no objection, if the proceedings for the remaining offences are dropped against the petitioners, as the parties have already entered into a compromise. Having considered the overall facts & circumstances of the case & looking to the fact that since the compromise has been arrived at between the petitioners & the respondent Nos.2 & 3, there is no possibility of the petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them before the Court concerned. Further when once the disputes have been settled by way of mutual compromise, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings 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 pending against the present petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed. The impugned F.I.R. No.337/2024 registered at Police Station, Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur City (North) alongwith all subsequent proceedings pending before the ld. Trial Court, qua the present petitioners, are, hereby, quashed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent to the ld. Trial Court concerned forthwith. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J. ASHOK