[2025:RJ-JP:5527] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 531/2025 Abdul Zabbar S/o Shri Mangtu, R/o Bas Badanpura, Mohalla Pachrang Patti, Jaipur ( Rajasthan). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Shri Vishal Mathur, Through Power of Attoney Holder of G.M.A.C. Financial Services India Limited Jaipur Registered Address First Floor, Sangam Tower, Church Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Singh Rathore, Public Prosecutor Mr. Amit Kumar Dehran, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 07/02/2025 : Instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred on behalf of the accused- petitioner seeking quashing of F.I.R. No.447/2005 dt.08.10.2005 registered at Police Station Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 474, 420 & 406 of I.P.C., alongwith all subsequent criminal proceedings pending against him in the Court of Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan-I, (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.235/2024 (1779/15) in terms of compromise. In the present case, during trial, the accused-petitioner and the complainant-respondent No.2 have entered into a compromise and the dispute between them have been settled amicably. The parties moved a compromise application before the trial Court for attesting the compromise for offences under Sections 420 & 406 of I.P.C. The trial [2025:RJ-JP:5527] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-531/2025] Court, vide its order dated 03.01.2025, had attested the compromise qua offences punishable under Section 420 & 406 of I.P.C. but kept pending the trial qua other offences as the same are non- compoundable. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has argued that as the complainant-respondent No.2 & the petitioner have already entered into a compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of I.P.C., there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the other abovesaid 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 petitioner for the other offences as the same may derail the compromise arrived at between them. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions made herein-above, whereas learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent No.2 has no objection, if the proceedings for the other above-said offences are dropped against the petitioner, 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 petitioner & the respondent No.2, there is no possibility of the petitioner being convicted in the case pending against him before the Court concerned and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:5527] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-531/2025] fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed. The F.I.R. No.447/2005 dt.08.10.2005 registered at Police Station Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur, alongwith all subsequent criminal proceedings are hereby quashed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK-keshav/