[2025:RJ-JP:8904] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8244/2024 1. Dharmendra Kumar Leel S/o Shri Suwalal Leel, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 5, Dhani Borana, Thikariya, Neem Ka Thana, Chala, Sikar (Raj). 2. Jainarayan Bagariya S/o Shri Bhuraram Bagariya, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Kushlawali Mawanda Khurd, District Sikar (Raj). 3. Rahul Singh S/o Shri Khyaliram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Kushlapura, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana Mawanda Khurd, District Sikar (Raj). 4. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Jaisingh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Main Chowk, Ragha Chhoti, District Churu (Raj). 5. Naveesh Kumar S/o Shri Yogesh Kumar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jat Gawda, Alwar (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Tushar S/o Shri Vinod Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Khedaron Ki Dhani, Tehsil Surajgarh,district Jhunjhunu Present Resident Of Ivg, Ultima, Flat No. 203, Patrakar Colony, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Lamba, Advocate with Mr. Manvendra Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta, Public Prosecutor Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 28/02/2025 : 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.877/2024 registered at Police Station, Shipra Path Jaipur City (South) for offences punishable [2025:RJ-JP:8904] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8244/2024] under Sections 115 (2), 126 (2), 140 (3), 308 (2), 127 (7) & 189 (2) of B.N.S., alongwith all subsequent proceedings in terms of compromise. In compliance of the order dt.05.02.2025 passed by this Court, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has submitted the factual report, which is taken on record. As per factual report, both the parties have amicably settled their disputes by way of compromise. The Investigating Officer has also verified the factum of compromise arrived between them. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners submits that the complainant-respondent & the petitioners have already entered into a compromise before the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted 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, as the same may derail the compromise arrived at between them. 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 complainant/ respondent has no objection, if the impugned F.I.R. is quashed, as the parties have already entered into a 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 proceedings pending. Furthermore, keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2025:RJ-JP:8904] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8244/2024] & 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 petitioner 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.877/2024 registered at Police Station, Shipra Path Jaipur City (South) alongwith all subsequent proceedings are hereby, quashed in terms of compromise. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI)J. ASHOK-Manoj/