[2026:RJ-JP:30628] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3592/2026 CNR: RJHC020516382026 | URN: CRLMP / 8002U / 2026 1. Dinesh Kumar S/o Prakash, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Krishna Vihar Colony, BK Kaul Nagar Police Station Ganj Ajmer (Rajasthan). 2. Sahil Anwar Siddiqui S/o Javed Anwar Siddiqui, Aged About 25 Years, R/o House No.77/5 Near Dhai Din Ka Jhopra Soldier House Andarkot Police Station Dargah Ajmer (Rajasthan). 3. Adnan Hussain S/o Anwar Hussain, Aged About 25 Years, R /o House No.332/23 Outside Delhi Gate Near Shobhraj, Police Station Ganj Ajmer (Rajasthan). 4. Mohammad Samir S/o Anis Mohammad, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Toshi Gali Ladkiyon Ke Pass Andarkot Police Station Dargah Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Accused/Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Non-Petitioner 2. Gaurav Sharma S/o Gopal Sharma, R/o Gurudwara Chauraha Hathibhata Police Station Kothwali Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Complainant 3. Shiv Sharma S/o Late Shri Prashant Sharma, R/o 118/12, Laxmi Narayan Temple Gali Hathi Bhata Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Victim/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka, Adv., with Mr. Chandrabhan Singh Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Choudhary, PP and Mr. Shivraj Singh Chauhan, Adv., for respondents No.2 and 3. [2026:RJ-JP:30628] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-3592/2026] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/08/2026 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 FIR No.122/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Ajmer for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) and 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. 2. Parties are present in person. They have duly been identified by their respective counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have resolved their dispute amicably. Counsel submits that after investigation, police has submitted the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) and 189(2) of BNS, 2023 on 12.06.2026. Counsel submits that perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that there are six injuries on the person of the injured Shiv and except injury No.1, all other injuries are simple in nature. Counsel submits that medical expert has opined the injury No.1 as grievous in nature and not dangerous to life, as far as other injured is concerned, only one injury has been found on his person and same has been opined as simple in nature. Counsel submits that since parties have resolved their dispute amicably and there are remote chances of conviction as injured will not support the prosecution case during the course of the trial, therefore, on account of compromise, further proceedings in the impugned FIR are fruitless and continuation [2026:RJ-JP:30628] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-3592/2026] thereof would be a futile exercise and a waste of precious judicial time and resources. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that since offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 307 of IPC) is a heinous offence therefore, on the basis of compromise, FIR should not be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise. He submits that complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR is 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. vs. 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. [2026:RJ-JP:30628] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-3592/2026] 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 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 that the impugned FIR is quashed. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:30628] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-3592/2026] Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and in Narendra Singh (supra) and Dimpey Gujral (supra), the FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. 9. In view of the above, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR No.122/2026 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Ajmer along with subsequent proceedings, is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow. 10. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 89/MADAN