[2025:RJ-JP:44724] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3394/2015 1. Ajeet Kumar Sharma Son of Ramotar Sharma, aged about 43 years, resident of A-48, Laxmi Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Naval Kishore Sharma Son of Late Shri Ram Kishore Sharma, aged about 41 years, resident of D-28, Mooritkala Colony, Near Gopalpura Railway Bridge, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. Ashok Kumar Agarwal Sonof Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, aged about 55 years, resident of D-41, Moortikala Colony, Near Gopalpura Railway Bridge, Jaipur. 4. Rambabu Jain Son of Late Shri Ram Sharan Lal Jain, aged about 44 years, resident of 102, Muktanand Nagar, Gopalpura by-pass, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through PP 2. Dheeraj Verma Son of Shri Krishan Verma, resident of 3-A, Chomu Thakur Colony, Gangapole, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Utkarsh Goyal, Ms. Chanchal for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Sharukh Khan for Mr. Madhav Mitra for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the instant petition, the petitioners and complainant have entered into compromise. The dispute was mainly relating to sale of immovable property. Pursuant to [2025:RJ-JP:44724] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3394/2015] compromise, one sale deed dated 05.03.2020 has also been executed by mother of petitioners in favour of complainant- Dheeraj Verma, which has also been registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Registration & Stamps and a copy of sale deed is also placed on record. 2. Pursuant to compromise and after execution of the registered sale deed, the complainant- Dheeraj Verma has also given one letter to the Assistant Police Commissioner, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur on 15.01.2021 revealing therein that there was dispute with regard to agreement to sale in respect of immovable property bearing Plot No.119 Muktanand Nagar, which has been resolved by the parties, hence, the complainant did not intend to pursue the FIR against the petitioner. 3. It is submitted that the aforesaid letter has also been taken on record by the police authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has not disputed the aforesaid facts with regard to compromise as well as execution of registered sale deed in his favour and further submits that he has got instructions not to prosecute the petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has also not disputed that the parties have entered into compromise and the offence was in relation to sale of immovable property. 6. Thus, in the light of above facts of the case as well as guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash FIR No.368/2015 [2025:RJ-JP:44724] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3394/2015] registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, District Jaipur (East) along with all subsequent proceedings. 7. The instant petition stands allowed accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /38