[2025:RJ-JP:46026] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4070/2025 Bharat Singh Rathore S/o Shri Jagdish Singh Rathore, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 22, Udyog Nagar Vistar Niwaru Road Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Shri Parvati Devi W/o Prakash Chand Kedia, R/o 170, Rameshwar Dham Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan 3. Rakesh Kedia S/o Prakash Chand Kedia, R/o 170, Rameshwar Dham Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yuvraj Singh Kachhawa Mr. Sahil Rajpurohit for Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Mohit Khandelwal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/11/2025 1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the proceedings arising out of the FIR No.328/2006 registered at Police Station Murlipura Thana, Jaipur for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120- B IPC, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon submission of the charge-sheet against the petitioner, he is facing trial for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. Learned counsel submits that during pendency of the [2025:RJ-JP:46026] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4053/2025] trial, an application was submitted by the complainants- respondents for compounding the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid application has been partly allowed and the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC has been compounded, but no permission has been granted to compound the offences under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120- B IPC, as the same are not compoundable. Learned counsel submits that in light of 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, the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR be quashed against the petitioner on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer, but counsel appearing on behalf of the complainants supported the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties and submits that the complainants have no objection in case, the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are quashed against the petitioner. 4. In view of the aforesaid compromise and the situations narrated herein above and looking to the fact that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties as well as considering the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the Trial Court and also applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case 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:46026] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4053/2025] 5. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands allowed. The proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No.328/2006 registered at Police Station Murlipura Thana, Jaipur pending against the petitioner before the Court below are hereby quashed. The petitioner is discharged from the charges under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. 6. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/215