[2025:RJ-JP:43657] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1832/2024 1. Bhagchand Jain S/o Shri Laxminarayan, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Hingoniya, Police Station Jobner, Jaipur. 2. Vijay Kumar S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 52 Years, Residento Of Plot No. 20. Mansarovar Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur 3. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Laxminarayan, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Hingoniya, Police Station Jobner, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhindra Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP Ms. Renu Verma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/10/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of criminal proceedings in Criminal Complaint Case No.375/2022 against the petitioners before the court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addiitonal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.2 Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC and during [2025:RJ-JP:43657] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1832/2024] pendency of the trial, compromise has taken place between the parties and the compromise has been attested by the trial court for the offences under Sections 420 & 406 IPC and proceedings have been dropped against them vide order dated 05.09.2023, but the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC have not been compounded as the same are not compoundable. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688. Learned counsel submits that under these circumstances, the proceedings pending against the petitioners under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC be quashed. 3. The parties are present in person, who have been duly identified by their counsel and has admitted the factum of compromise between them and the same has been verified by their counsel. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the trial Court has verified the compromise vide order dated 05.09.2023 to the extent of offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC and discharged the petitioners from the charge under Sections 420 & 406 IPC, however, the trial Court has declined to verify the compromise with regard to the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC on the ground that the said offences are not compoundable. 6. In view of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties and looking to the fact that the parties have amicably [2025:RJ-JP:43657] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1832/2024] settled the dispute and now the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners and also applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Gian Singh (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court contained under Section 528 BNSS. 7. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. The petitioners are discharged from the charge under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC in Criminal Complaint Case No.375/2022 against the petitioners pending before the court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addiitonal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.2 Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur. 8. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/89