[2026:RJ-JP:4907] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 124/2026 Rakesh S/o Shri Jhabar Mal, R/o Khedi Jajod, Srimadhopur District Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. 2. Victim, R/o ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Barala For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/01/2026 1. The instant misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reengus, District Sikar in case No.420/2020 arising out of FIR No.35/2020 registered at Police Station Reengus, District Sikar for offences punishable under Sections 66C & 66D of Information Technology Act, 2008, whereby, the learned Magistrate refused to compound the offence under Sections 66C & 66D of Information Technology Act, 2008. 2. The parties are present in person and they have duly been identified by their respective counsel. [2026:RJ-JP:4907] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-124/2026] 3. After registration of the aforesaid FIR, the police conducted investigation in the matter and submitted charge-sheet before the concerned Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of trial, matter has been resolved by the parties by way of amicable settlement and an application was also filed by the parties before the learned trial Court to drop the proceedings but learned trial Court refused to accept the compromise in view of Section 77A of Information Technology Act, 2008. Counsel submits that the parties are family members as petitioner in the brother- in-law of the victim/complainant and they have resolved the dispute amicably therefore, further proceedings before the learned trial Court would not serve any fruitful purpose. In such circumstances, counsel prays that the order dated 01.12.2025 may be quashed and the offences under Sections 66C & 66D of Information Technology Act, 2008 may be compounded and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner may also be quashed. 5. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant do not dispute the factum of compromise. 6. 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 petitioner and complainant have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute and also finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh versus State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2012 [2026:RJ-JP:4907] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-124/2026] 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 order is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. 7. In view of the above, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reengus, District Sikar in case No.420/2020 is quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and the offences under Sections 66C & 66D of Information Technology Act, 2008 are compounded. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Reengus, District Sikar in case No.420/2020 arising out of FIR No.35/2020 registered at Police Station Reengus, District Sikar are quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow. 8. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /156