[2025:RJ-JP:40008] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6225/2025 1. Prakash Meena Son Of Shri Batti Lal, Resident Of Village Dangda, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Raj.) 2. Prakash @ Pintu Son Of Ramesh Meena, Resident Of Village Hadoti, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Dinesh Son Of Shri Ramsahai, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Bhagirathpura (Dongri) Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Man Singh Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Kaushlesh Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 26/09/2025 1. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by petitioners, seeking to quash the FIR No. 0237/2025, registered at Police Station Sapotra, District Karauli for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 308(5) & 3(5) of BNS qua petitioners, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties. 2. It has been stated that the impugned FIR came to be lodged against petitioners levelling allegation for snatching Rs. 1000/- from the complainant, however, later on, complainant has entered into compromise with the petitioners and does not want to prosecute the petitioners further. [2025:RJ-JP:40008] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6225/2025] 3. Complainant is present in person, who is duly identified by his counsel and submitted his original affidavit dated 01.09.2025 stating therein that he has no objection to quash the FIR and further investigation in the matter. The original affidavit dated 01.09.2025 is taken on record. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows: “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 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 High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although 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 wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of 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 permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and 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 victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may [2025:RJ-JP:40008] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6225/2025] within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of 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.” The above principles of law have been followed and reiterated by the Apex Court, recently, in case of Naushey Ali and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2025) 4 SCC 78]. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [(2022) 14 SCC 531] observed as follows: “12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable.” 6. In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, and considering the offences, which are petty in nature and do not affect the public at large, more so in view of the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the present misc. petition. 7. As a final result, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR No. 0237/2025, registered at Police Station Sapotra, District Karauli, alongwith all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside. 8. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/Ronak Jaiman/71