[2026:RJ-JP:30437] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5069/2026 CNR: RJHC020740562026 | URN: CRLMP / 11714U / 2026 1. Insaf S/o Shri Ishtiyak Mohammad, R/o Near Madi Masjid, Saranpur, Rajgarh, Presently Chahediya, District Baran. 2. Rehan @ Rangeela S/o Shri Moin Khan, R/o Chahediya, District Baran. 3. Firoj Khan S/o Raees Mohammad, R/o Masjid Ki Gali, Suket, District Kota. 4. Soyal Khan S/o Salim Khan, R/o Bairwa Mohalla, Suket, District Kota. 5. Nitesh Valmiki S/o Radheyshyam, R/o Durganagar Ramchandrapura, Kota. ----Accused-Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent 2. Aftab @ Raja S/o Shri Mikhtiyar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o House No. 110, Ashiyana Nagar, Near Kanchan Resort, Borkheda, Kota. 3. Firoj Khan @ Firoj Mistri S/o Shri Akbar Hussain, Aged About 25 Years, R/o House No. 4-H-45, Gali No. 08, Sanjay Nagar, Udiya Basti, P.s. Vigyan Nagar, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Choudhary, PP and Mr. Gourav Sharma, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 04/08/2026 1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS, the accused-petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case [2026:RJ-JP:30437] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-5069/2026] No.18/2026 pending before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.03, Kota arising out of FIR No.548/2025 registered at Police Station Udoyog Nagar, District Kota City for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 126(2), 115(2) and 109(1) of BNS, 2023, on the basis of compromise. 2. After registration of the aforesaid FIR, the police conducted investigation in the matter and submitted charge-sheet before the concerned Court for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) and 189(2) of BNS, 2023 against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that complainant and victim have been examined during the course of trial wherein, they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. Counsel submits that parties have entered into compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat. Counsel further submits that copy of compromise has been produced before the learned trial Court but the learned trial Court vide order dated 18.07.2026 has attested/accepted the compromise only to the extent of offences punishable under Sections 115(2) and 126(2) of BNS, 2023, therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 18.07.2026 may be modified and criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the trial Court for offences under Sections 109(1) and 189(2) of BNS, 2023 may be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the BNS (corresponding to [2026:RJ-JP:30437] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-5069/2026] Section 307 of IPC) is a heinous offence therefore, on the basis of compromise, FIR should not be quashed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant do not dispute the factum of compromise. He submits that complainant has no objection if the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the trial Court are quashed. 6. Following the analogy expounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Singh versus State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, while dealing with the issue to allow the settlement for offence under Section 109(1) of BNS, it has been observed that the petition under Section 528 of BNSS may not be refused merely on a ground that the FIR/Charge-sheet incorporate the offence under Section 109(1) of BNS. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered observations made in case of Dimpey Gujral & Ors. versus U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 497 accepting the settlement between parties for offence under Section 307 IPC and observed as under:- “Having said so, we would hasen to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/ victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/ charge-sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under Section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise [2026:RJ-JP:30437] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-5069/2026] in such cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely, whether injuries are caused at the vital/ delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used, etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessarily included in the charge- sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties.” 7. In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for perusal of the Court and the fact that dispute has been resolved between the parties amicably, this Court feels that in order to establish harmony between the parties and give quietus to the litigation, it would be expedient to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the trial Court. 8. 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 and in Narendra Singh (supra) and Dimpey Gujral (supra), thus, the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners for [2026:RJ-JP:30437] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-5069/2026] offences punishable under Sections under Sections 109(1) and 189(2) of BNS, 2023 are liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.18/2026 pending before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.03, Kota for offences under Sections 109(1) and 189(2) of BNS, 2023 as well as FIR No.548/2025 registered at Police Station Udoyog Nagar, District Kota City against the petitioners are hereby quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. Consequence to follow. 10. Stay Application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 153/MADAN