[2026:RJ-JP:30134] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4903/2026 CNR: RJHC020716742026 | URN: CRLMP / 11335U / 2026 1. Amar Chand Soni S/o Shri Ghanshyam Soni, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Shyam Mandir, Talab Road, Rajat Viahr Ke Samne Wali Gali, Near Balaji General Store, Neema Ka Thana, District Sikar At Present Kardhani Enclave Gopla- pura Jhotwara Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Aryan Soni @ Lakki Soni S/o Shri Amarchand Soni, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Shyam Mandir, Talab Road, Rajat Vi- ahr Ke Samne Wali Gali, Near Balaji General Store, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar At Present Kardhani Enclave Gopalpura Jhotwara Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Manish Soni S/o Shri Subhash Chand Soni, Aged About 26 Years, R/o S-64 Suncity Town Ship Fase-2Nd Sikar Road Jaipur. At Present 38 Jagdish Nagar Niwaru Road, National Market Ke Samne Wali Gali, Jhotwara Road, Jhot- wara Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Raghav For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Mohd. Zuber Mr. Prabal Pratap Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/08/2026 1. Parties are present in person. They have duly been identified by their respective counsel. 2. By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, the accused-petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.95/2026 registered at Police [2026:RJ-JP:30134] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4903/2026] Station Manak Chowk, District Jaipur City (North) for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) & 61(2) of the BNS, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by way of amicable settlement, a compromise deed has been executed between the parties. The written compromise has been annexed with this petition as Annexure-2. Counsel submits that on account of compromise, further proceedings in the impugned FIR are fruitless and continuation thereof would be a futile exercise and a waste of precious judicial time and resources. 4. Complainant of this case is present in person. He has duly been identified by his counsel. Under the instructions of the complainant, counsel submits that complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise. He submits that complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR is quashed. 5. In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for perusal; considering the fact that parties have resolved their dispute amicably and also finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh versus State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. versus Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. [2026:RJ-JP:30134] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4903/2026] 6. In view of the above, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR No.95/2026 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, District Jaipur City (North) along with all consequential proceeding is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow. 7. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN/275