[2025:RJ-JP:13468] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1025/2025 1. Shankar Sadhwani Son Of Shri Prahlad Roy Sadhwani, Resident Of House No. 303, Kalpvriksh Apartment, S.D.C. Bihari Marg, Banipark, Jaipur (Raj). 2. Ashok Sadhwani Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Sadhwani, Resident Of House No. 303, Kalpvriksh Apartment, S.D.C. Bihari Marg, Banipark, Jaipur (Raj). 3. Mahaveer Sharma Son Of Late Shri Bholu Ram Sharma, (Hotel Manager Maya International Hotel), Banipark, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Prem Devi Wife Of Shri Ramjilal Gurjar, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Maya Holiday Resort, Village Thikriya, Police Station Bagru, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P. Mr. Rajveer Gurjar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 25/03/2025 Instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioners seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.4/2025 registered at Police Station Bagru, District Jaipur (West) for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 74, 324(4), 324(5), 352, 351(2) & 303(2) of B.N.S. [2025:RJ-JP:13468] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1025/2025] In compliance of the order dt. 03.03.2025 passed by this Court, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, has submitted the factual report, which is taken on record. As per factual report, both the parties have amicably settled their disputes by way of compromise. The Investigating Officer has also verified the factum of compromise arrived between the complainant-respondent and the petitioner Nos.1, 2 & 3, namely Shankar Sadhwani, Ashok Sadhwani & Mahaveer Sharma respectively. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners submits that the complainant-respondent & the petitioners have already entered into a compromise before the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted 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, 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 complainant/respondent has no objection, if the impugned F.I.R. is quashed, as the parties have already entered into a compromise. Having considered the overall facts & circumstances of the case & looking to the fact that the compromise has been arrived at between the petitioners & the respondent, this Court is of the view that when once the disputes have been settled by way of mutual [2025:RJ-JP:13468] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1025/2025] 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 528of B.N.S.S. 2023. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed. The impugned F.I.R. No.4/2025 registered at Police Station Bagru, District Jaipur (West) along with all subsequent proceedings, is hereby, quashed qua the present petitioners in terms of compromise. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J SAURABH /95