[2025:RJ-JP:9370] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 807/2025 1. Shyam Singh @ Bhola S/o Prabhati, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Hatizar Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) 2. Ramveer S/o Prabhati, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Hatizar Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) 3. Mukesh S/o Sohanlal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Hatizar Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) 4. Deshraj S/o Jawali, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Hatizar Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) 5. Bharat Singh S/o Sugad Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Hatizar Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) 6. Bablu S/o Sugad Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Hatizar Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Accused-Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Shanti W/o Late Shri Pooran Singh, R/o Village Hatizar Police Station Halena Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur. (Rajasthan) 3. Omprakash S/o Late Shri Pooran Singh (Victism), R/o Village Hatizar Police Station Halena Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur. (Rajasthan) 4. Rajeev S/o Late Shri Pooran Singh, R/o Village Hatizar Police Station Halena Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur. (Rajasthan) 5. Sanjay S/o Late Shri Pooran Singh, R/o Village Hatizar Police Station Halena Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur. (Rajasthan) 6. Beena W/o Omprakash, R/o Village Hatizar Police Station Halena Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur. (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, Public Prosecutor Mr. Vinod Pathak, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 04/03/2025 : [2025:RJ-JP:9370] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-807/2025] Instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the accused-petitioners against the judgment dt.06.12.2023 passed by Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Weir District Bharatpur, in Criminal Regular Case No.590/2017 whereby ld. Magistrate has convicted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 341, 325/149, 365/149, & 452/149 of I.P.C. & sentenced them to undergo maximum five years simple imprisonment alongwith with fine. The petitioners/accused have also challenged the order dt.07.11.2024 passed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Weir District Bharatpur, in Criminal Appeal No.27/2023, whereby the ld. Judge has attested the compromise for offence u/Ss.323/149, 341 & 325/149 of I.P.C. but refused to attest the compromise qua offences u/Ss.365/149 & 452/149 of I.P.C., as the same are non-compoundable. In the present case, during pendency of appeal, the petitioners and the legal heirs of deceased complainant had entered into two compromise deeds dt.27.09.2024 & dt.07.11.2024 and the dispute between them had amicably been settled. The parties moved an application alongwith the compromise deeds before the ld. Appellate Court for attesting the compromise for offences punishable under Sections 323/149, 341, 325/149, 147, 148, 365/149 & 452/149 of I.P.C. The ld. Appellate Court, vide its order dated 07.11.2024, had attested the compromise & acquitted the petitioners for the offences under Sections 323/149, 341 & 325/149 of I.P.C., as the same is compoundable but kept pending the further proceedings in respect of the remaining offences as the same are non-compoundable. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners has argued that since the respondents & the petitioners have already [2025:RJ-JP:9370] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-807/2025] entered into a compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioners have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 323/149, 341 & 325/149 of I.P.C., there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the remaining offences. It is further argued that since the compromise has been arrived at between the parties by way of mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial against the petitioners for the remaining offences, as the same may derail the compromise arrived at between them. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioners, whereas the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection, if the proceedings for the remaining offences are dropped against the petitioners, as the parties have already entered into a compromise. Having considered the overall facts & circumstances of the case & looking to the fact that since the compromise has been arrived at between the petitioners & the respondents, there is no possibility of the petitioners being convicted in the case pending against them before the Court concerned. Further when once the disputes, if any, have been settled by way of mutual compromise, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. Furthermore, keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, JT 2012 (9) S.C. 426, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed. The impugned judgment dt.06.12.2023 passed by the ld. Trial Court is quashed & set [2025:RJ-JP:9370] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-807/2025] aside. The criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Weir District Bharatpur, in Criminal Appeal No.27/2023 alongwith impugned F.I.R. No.58/2014 registered at Police Station Halena District Bharatpur are, hereby, quashed qua the present petitioners in terms of compromise. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J. saurabh-ASHOK