[2026:RJ-JP:3088] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 394/2026 Raju Jangid Son Of Lt. Shri Satyanarayan Jangid, Resident Of 85, Shatabdi Nagar, India Gate, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Ramgopal Chaudhary Son Of Shri Chhitarmal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Kumhariyawas, Teh- Chaksu, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Vijay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Vijay Kumar, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 22/01/2026 1. The instant misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed challenging the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.15, Chaksu, Jaipur Metro-I in Criminal Case No.1369/2024 arising out of FIR No.310/2022 registered at Police Station Shivdaspura, District Jaipur City (South) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC whereby, learned Magistrate attested the compromise only to the extent of offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC but refused to compound the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC. [2026:RJ-JP:3088] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-394/2026] 2. After registration of the aforesaid FIR, the police conducted investigation in the matter and submitted charge-sheet before the concerned court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties have entered into a compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat. It is submitted that copy of compromise deed has been produced before the trial court but the trial court vide order dated 04.03.2025 has attested the compromise only to the extent of offences under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC and refused to compound the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC, therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 04.03.2025 may be modified and the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC may also be compounded and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner may be quashed. 4. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant do not dispute the factum of compromise. 5. In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for my perusal; considering the fact that petitioner and complainant have arrived at compromise and settled 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 Vs. State of Punjab & Anr-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604], the impugned order is liable to be modified and the proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside in view of compromise [2026:RJ-JP:3088] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-394/2026] arrived at between the parties although the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC alleged to be made out in the instant case are not compoundable. 6. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.15, Chaksu, Jaipur Metro-I in Criminal Case No.1369/2024 to the extent of refusing to compound the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC is quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC are compounded. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.15, Chaksu, Jaipur Metro-I in Criminal Case No.1369/2024 arising out of FIR No.310/2022 registered at Police Station Shivdaspura, District Jaipur City (South) are quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow. 7. Stay Application and pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /159