[2026:RJ-JP:28894] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6585/2024 CNR: RJHC020831392024 | URN: CRLMP / 13361U / 2024 1. Sanjay Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Choudhary, Resident Of Seva, Jaipur (Raj). 2. Gopal Lal Jat S/o Shri Surajkaran, Resident Of Jato Ka Mohalla, Muli Tara, Jaipur (Raj). 3. Dinesh Kumar Bangadwa S/o Ved Prakash Bangadwa, Resident Of Bass Bijoli, Jhunjhunu (Raj). 4. Ravi Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma, Resident Of 51, Shiv Vihar, Mangyawas, Jaipur (Raj) 5. Basram Choudhary S/o Shri Kishanlal Choudhary, Resident Of Chotiyon Ka Mohalla Kurad, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj). 6. Ramsingh Jat S/o Shri Kanaram, Resident Of Tundeda, District Tonk (Raj). 7. Manoj Jangid S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Jangid, Resident Of Plot No. 47, Sumer Nagar Vistar, Block-F, Golyawas, Jaipur (Raj). 8. Mukesh Choudhary S/o Shri Babulal Choudhary, Resident Of B-333, Jagdamba Nagar-B, Ward No. 14, Jaipur (Raj). 9. Bhanwar Jaideep Singh Ranawat S/o Shri Chatrasal Singh Ranawat, Resident Of Bavlas Haveli, Azad Mohalla, Near Mahila Aashram, Bhopalganj, Bhilwara (Raj). 10. Badrinarayan Choudhary S/o Shri Dhanna Lal Jat, Resident Of Khudiyala, Dudu, Jaipur (Raj). 11. Ankit S/o Shri Surendra Singh, Resident Of Sheorano Ka Baas, Bhothri, Jhunjhunu (Raj). 12. Surendra Choudhary S/o Shri Gopal Lal Jat, Resident Of Jato Ka Mohalla, Muli Tala, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Manish Jangid S/o Shri Durga Prasad, Resident Of Khatiyon Ka Mohalla, Opposite Police Line, Ward No. 35, Sikar District Sikar (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pramod Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Anirudh Singh Mr. Babulal Nasuna for Mr. Sankalp Todi [2026:RJ-JP:28894] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6585/2024] JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/07/2026 1. A prayer has been made to quash the proceeding arising out of the impugned FIR No.440/2024, registered with Police Station Muhana, District Jaipur City (South) for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, on the basis of the compromise between the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submit that the accused as well as the complainant side are known to each other. Counsels further submit that after registration of the impugned FIR, the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners, as they have settled their dispute, hence, a joint prayer has been made to quash the entire proceedings on the basis of said compromise. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, i.e., dacoity and the said offence is against the society. Counsel submits that the said offence is not private in nature, but the same has serious impact on the society. Hence, in the light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, the alleged offence cannot be allowed to be compounded by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [2026:RJ-JP:28894] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6585/2024] 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has dealt with similar kind of issue in para 61 which reads as under: “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc.: cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically [2026:RJ-JP:28894] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6585/2024] private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 6. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned Public Prosecutor and looking to the fact that in the instant matter, the petitioners have been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, i.e., dacoity and the said offence is not private in nature, but it has a serious impact on the society and also considering the proposition of law as propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition for the purpose of quashing the proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC on the basis of compromise. 7. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/59