HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7477/2025 1. Sitram Choudhary Son Of Shri Bhuramal Choudhary, Resi- dent Of Village Sunari, Tehsil-Nevai, District Tonk-Ra- jasthan. 2. Jai Narayan Jaat Son Of Shri Kalyanmal Choudhary, Resi- dent Of Village Sunari, Tehsil-Nevai, District-Tonk, Ra- jasthan, Presently Residing At Plot No.116, Swej Farm, Near Shri Siddheshwar Hanuman Mandir, Nandpuri, So- dala, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. M/s Unnati Enterprises, Through Its Authorized Person (Presently Branch Manager) Shri Dekinandan Sharma Son Of Late Shri Ramjilal Sharma, Address-D-213, Kalidas Marg, Banipark, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishan Kumar Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP Mr. Sandeep Kumar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/11/2025 1. The instant petition has been preferred for quashing the pro- ceedings in the criminal case No. 09/2021 pending against the pe- titioners before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Mag- istrate (SPE Cases), Jaipur arising out of the FIR No 269/2015 on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after sub- mission of the charge sheet against the petitioners before the trial (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7477/2025] Court, an application has jointly been submitted by the parties for compounding all the offences as the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners. Counsel submits that the aforesaid ap- plication has been partly allowed and the offences under Sections 420, 408 and 418 IPC have been compounded but the permission has been declined for the rest of the offences, as the same are not compoundable. Counsel further submits that again another appli- cation has been submitted by both the parties for compounding the offence under Section 381 IPC and the same has been allowed and the petitioners have been discharged for the offence under Section 381 IPC also. Counsel submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR are personal in nature and now the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners but counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant accepts the factum of compromise. 5. In view of the aforesaid compromise and the situations nar- rated herein above and looking to the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties as well as the orders dated 03.07.2025 and 13.08.2025 passed by the Trial Court and also ap- plying the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra), this (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7477/2025] Court deems it just and proper to invoke the inherent powers of this Court contained under Section 528 BNSS. 6. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands al- lowed. Proceedings in criminal case No. 09/2021 pending against the petitioners before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (SPE Cases), Jaipur arising out of FIR No.269/2015 are quashed. 7. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/84