[2025:RJ-JP:47226] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6415/2025 1. Ramdhan Son Of Narayan, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Village -Goli Police Station- Bandarsindri, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. 2. Lala Alias Laluram Son Of Narayan, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Village -Goli Police Station- Bandarsindri, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Sonali, D/o Late Shri Banshi, Wife Of Mohan Ranka, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village -Goli, Tehsil Arai District Ajmer, Currently Resident Of Dulia, District-Dulia, Maharashtra. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Nikitha Bhandari For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP Mr.Pulkit Choudhary JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 21/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the F.I.R. No.1/2015 registered at the Police Station Bandar Sindari, District Ajmer and proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the trial before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Kishangarh, the complainant has submitted an application for compounding the alleged offences, however, the application has been partly allowed and the offences under [2025:RJ-JP:47226] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6415/2025] Sections 420 and 506 IPC have been compounded and the permission has been declined for the rest of the offences as those offences are not compoundable. Counsel submits that the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, hence, the pending proceedings may be quashed on the basis of the compromise as the dispute pertains to personal in nature. 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. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has accepted the factum of compromise between the parties and submits that the complainant has no objection in case, the proceedings are quashed against the petitioners on the basis of the compromise. 4. Learned Public Prosecute opposed the prayer. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the complainant and looking to the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and now the complainant does not wish 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 the inherent powers of this Court contained under Section 528 BNSS. [2025:RJ-JP:47226] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6415/2025] 6. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. The petitioners are discharged from the charge under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC in Regular Criminal Case No.749/2016 pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.02, Kishangarh. 7. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /36