[2025:RJ-JP:49390] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.3034/2025 Mukesh Rana S/o Ramchandra Rana, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Raigaro Ka Mohallah, Pithawas, Hathoj, Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Shankar Rana S/o Late Sh. Suresh Rana, R/o Raigaro Ka Mohallah, Pithawas, Hathoj, Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Srijan Tiwari JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/12/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the FIR No.310/2024 registered with the Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 325 and 308 IPC and during the course of trial, the complainant/injured has submitted an application seeking compounding of the offences in favour of the petitioner. However, the said application has been partly allowed and the [2025:RJ-JP:49390] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3034/2025] Trial Court has granted permission for compounding of the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 325 IPC, as these offences are compoundable. However, the Trial Court has declined the permission for compounding the offence under Section 308 IPC, on the ground that the said offence is not compoundable. Counsel submits that the petitioner and injured are family members, so in the interest of justice, the pending proceedings be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer, but counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-victim has no objection in case the proceedings are quashed in favour of the petitioners. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that an incident has occurred on 25.03.2024, wherein the injured Bimla Devi has sustained two injuries; one is on the lower part of her forearm and the same was found to be caused by blunt object and opinion was reserved; while the injury No.2 was sustained by her on her right parietal region and the same was found to be simple in nature caused by blunt object. 7. Though fracture of forearm was found in the X-Ray report, but looking to the fact that the injured has not [2025:RJ-JP:49390] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3034/2025] sustained any grievous/dangerous injury on any vital parts of her body and looking to the fact that the accused and injured are family members, no cause would survive in case the proceedings are allowed to continue and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. 8. Hence, in view of the aforesaid compromise and the situations narrated herein above and also applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case 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. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. Proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No.310/2024 registered with the Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur (West) stand quashed. The petitioner is discharged from the charge under Section 308 IPC. 10. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/28