[2026:RJ-JP:6767] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 271/2026 1. Yash Sharma S/o Subhash Chand Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- C-41-B, Dunglod House, Shiv Marg, Hawa Sarak, P.s. Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Subhash Chand Sharma S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o- C-41-B, Dunglod House, Shiv Marg, Hawa Sarak, P.s. Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Smt. Malti Sharma W/o Subhash Chand Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, R/o- C-41-B, Dunglod House, Shiv Marg, Hawa Sarak, P.s. Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Smt. Pooja Sharma W/o Rahul Saraswat D/o Subhash Chand Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Flat No. 388, Talkatora Road, Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Rahul Saraswat S/o Mahesh Chand, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Flat No. 388, Talkatora Road, Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) 6. Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o-C-41, Dunglod House, Shiv Marg, Hawa Sarak, P.s. Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners/Accused Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. 2. Smt. Chetna W/o Yash Sharma D/o Late Shri Manmohan Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o At Present 33-A, Anand Vihar-C, Nadi Ka Phatak, Nangal Jaisa Bohara, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Surbhi Khandelwal, Adv. Ms. Jinal Gehalot, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Rhishiraj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Arvind Mahawar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order [2026:RJ-JP:6767] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-271/2026] 12/02/2026 1 ;kphx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls mDr ,dyihB vkijkf/kd fofo/k ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk] izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 464@2025 iqfyl Fkkuk&efgyk Fkkuk ¼t;iqj] iwoZ½] ftyk& t;iqj ¼iwoZ½] vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 498&, ,oa 406 Hkkna-la- ,oa mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh dks i{kdkjku ds e/; ijLij jkthukek gksus ds vk/kkj ij jí ,oa vikLr fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk ds lkFk izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2 ;kphx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k rFkk ifjoknh;k psruk 'kekZ O;fDrxr :i ls vius vf/koDrkx.k lfgr vkt U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSa rFkk muds vf/koDrkx.k dk la;qDr :i ls ;g dFku gS fd i{kdkjksa ds e/; yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls jkthukek gks pqdk gS] tks i=koyh ij ,usDlj&2 ds :i esa izLrqr gS] vr% jkthukes ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds rgr gLrxr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 464@2025 ,oa mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh jn~n ,oa vikLr fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dhA 3 fo}ku vfrfjDr jktdh; vf/koDrk us fof/k&lEer mfpr vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA 4 ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd ''Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or [2026:RJ-JP:6767] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-271/2026] criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.'' Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [(2022) 14 SCC 531] ''12.The High Court, therefore, having re- gard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are noncompoundable.'' Jasmair Singh Vs. State of Haryana [(2022) 9 SCC 73] ''while dealing with the quashment of matrimonial dispute, held that since parties buried hatched and decided to give quietus to proceedings which were lodged inter se, hence going by law declared in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303] held that case was eminently suitable to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Crpc for quashment of criminal proceed- ings.'' 5 izLrqr ekeys esa mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds ifjizs{; esa ,oa nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; fookn dh izd`fr] nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; jkthukek rFkk orZeku esa nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; lkSgknZiw.kZ fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds rgr vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, i{kdkjksa ds e/; jkthukek gks tkus dh fLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, gLrxr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 464@2025 ,oa mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh dks vikLr fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA 6 vr% ;g ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 464@2025 iqfyl Fkkuk& efgyk Fkkuk ¼t;iqj] iwoZ½ ftyk& t;iqj [2026:RJ-JP:6767] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-271/2026] ¼iwoZ½ vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 498&, ,oa 406 Hkkna-la- ,oa mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh dks jkthukek gksus ds vk/kkj ij jí ,oa vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA 7 mDr ;kfpdk mijksDr vuqlkj fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gS ,oa izdj.k ls lacaf/kr izkFkZuk i=] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gks rks] mUgsa Hkh fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA (BHUWAN GOYAL),J NIKITA /93