[2025:RJ-JP:8318] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 518/2025 1. Ramkishan Meena Son Of Ishwar Lal Meena, Resident Of Village Dungarpur, Tehsil Rahuwas, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa (Raj). 2. Surjan Meena Son Of Ishwar Lal Meena, Resident Of Village Dungarpur, Tehsil Rahuwas, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa (Raj). 3. Rambhajan Meena Son Of Ishwar Lal Meena, Resident Of Village Dungarpur, Tehsil Rahuwas, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Kamlesh Son Of Shri Keshralal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Jadu Wali Dhani, Dungarpur, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramniwas Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, P.P. Mr. Lalit Chittoria HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 24/02/2025 1. The instant criminal misc. Petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 528 B.N.S.S. for quashing of F.I.R. No.132/2024, registered at Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa, for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 126(2), 115(2), 109(1) & 3(5) of B.N.S. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute was in between the family members and the same has already [2025:RJ-JP:8318] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-518/2025] been resolved through an amicable settlement and now, there remains no controversy in between them. An affidavit with regard to compromise has also been submitted before the Investigating Officer as well as before this Court. The Investigating Officer has verified the factum of compromise and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings further in the matter. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant-respondent No.2 admits the factum of compromise and submits that the complainant-respondent No.2 has no objection if the F.I.R. and proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise entered between the parties. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made herein-above. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record more particularly the police report, nature of allegation(s) and the compromise deed executed in between the parties. The parties have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. The offence(s) alleged in this matter are non-compoundable, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not [2025:RJ-JP:8318] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-518/2025] hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. 6. Here in this case, though the offences are non- compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is essentially in between the parties which is not affecting public peace and tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the F.I.R. and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof. 7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. Petition is allowed and the F.I.R. mentioned above and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside. 8. The stay petition also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J SAHIL SONI /125