HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6505/2025 1. Piyush Tiwari S/o Mohan Tiwari, R/o B-26, Harijan Basti, Old Kondli, Delhi - 96. 2. Sandeep Kumar S/o Prempal Singh, R/o Village And Post Khaspur, Tehsil And District Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh. 3. Satyajeet Mali S/o Kalipado Mali, R/o A-89, B-10, Udaigiri-Ii, Sector 34, Noida, Uttar Pradesh. 4. Pramod Yadav S/o Kalika Prasad, R/o A-367, G.d. Colony, Mayur Vihar Phase-Iii, Delhi. 5. Abhishek Kumar S/o Umesh Prasad, R/o B-19-A, Kondli, Delhi-96. 6. Mohit Sagwan S/o Pradeep Kumar, R/o K-1303, Sector 9, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. 7. Sandeep Kumar Tirkey S/o Fuljence Tirkey, R/o House No. 385/1, Gali No. 10, Uttrakhand Enclave, Burari, Delhi-84. 8. Mahesh Kumar Thakur S/o Ramanand, R/o 42, Anekant Apartment, Vashudhara Enclave, Delhi. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Govind Singh Rathore S/o Late Shri Jaisingh Rathore, R/o Kairap, Police Station Thunthuna, District Nagaur, Presently R/o 164, Awho, Ambabari, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Chahar and Mr. Shaurav Tripathi for Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 24/11/2025 (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6505/2025] 1. The instant petition has been preferred for quashing the proceedings in criminal case No. 190/2017 pending against the petitioners before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur arising out of FIR No.186/2017 on the basis of compromise between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after submission of the charge sheet against the petitioners before the trial Court, the complainant has submitted an application for compounding all the offences as he does not want to prosecute the petitioners. Counsel submits that aforesaid application has been partly allowed and the offence under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and Section 66-C and 66-D of the I.T Act has been compounded but the permission has been declined for the rest of the offences, as the same is not compoundable. Counsel submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR are of personal 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 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. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners. 5. In view of the aforesaid compromise and the situations narrated herein above and looking to the fact that the compromise has arrived at between the parties as well as the order dated 06.10.2018 passed by the Trial Court and also applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6505/2025] (supra) and Laxmi Narayan (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court contained under Section 528 BNSS. 6. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. Proceedings in criminal case No. 190/2017 pending against the petitioners before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur arising out of FIR No.186/2017 are quashed. 7. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/31