[2026:RJ-JP:5238] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 450/2026 1. Sharif Son Of Late Mandu, Aged About 47 Years, 2. Mansoor Khan Son Of Shri Sharif, Aged About 20 Years, 3. Bashir Mohammad S/o Son Of Shri Sharif, Aged About 24 Years, All Resident Of Aagala Kankad Village Somalpur Police Station Ramgunj District, Ajmer. ----Accused Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Kamruddin Son Of Bhomaji, Aged About 48 Years, 3. Ramzan Son Of Bhomaji, 4. Roshni Bano Wife Of Ramzan, 5. Firoj Khan Son Of Ramzan, 6. Niyaz Son Of Ramzan, All resident of Aagala Kankad, Village Somalpur, Police Station Ramgunj, District, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Upadhyay, Advocate Ms. Komal Shekhawat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy. GA Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 04/02/2026 1. This petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in Cr. Case No. 273/2024 titled State Versus Shariff and others pending before Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Ajmer. [2026:RJ-JP:5238] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-450/2026] 2. Today accused petitioners Sharif and Bashir Mohammad alongwith the respondents no. 2 to 6 appeared in person before this Court. They were directed to appear before Registrar (Judl.) of this Court for verification and attestation of the compromise. Pursuant thereto, the parties appeared before the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court, their signature have been obtained on the order sheet, they have been identified and the compromise has verified by Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accused petitioner Mansoor Khan S/o Shri Sharif is in judicial custody, therefore, he is not present today before this Court. 4. He further submits that the parties do not have any animosity against each other and there was no pre-meditated fight but on account of some sudden altercations / scuffle erupted between parties on 27.6.2024, impugned FIR came to be lodged against petitioners. He further submits that thereafter the parties have entered into a compromise and buried their hatchet in order to maintain peace and harmony in their life and to maintain cordial relations between them. They submitted an application before the trial court for attesting the compromise, but the trial court declined to drop the criminal proceedings for the offence under Sections 452 and 307 IPC being non compoundable. The compromise duly signed by the parties and attested by the Oath Commissioner has been placed on record. Thus, he has prayed to quash the criminal proceedings in Cr. Case No. 273/2024. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents concurs with the factum of compromise. He further submits that the complainant/victim do not want to prosecute the petitioners [2026:RJ-JP:5238] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-450/2026] further in the matter. He has shown no objection in case criminal proceedings in Cr. Case No. 273/2024 are quashed and set-aside on the basis of compromise. 6. Further, it has been jointly submitted that in view of the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between parties, the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and the continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners would be abuse of process of law, therefore, to secure ends of justice, the criminal proceedings in Cr. Case No. 273/2024 be quashed, in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 7. Learned Dy. GA has submitted the offence under Sections 307 and 452 IPC are not compoundable. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows: “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 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.” [2026:RJ-JP:5238] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-450/2026] 10. Following the analogy expounded by the Apex Court in case of Gian Singh (supra), while dealing with the issue to allow settlement for offence under Section 307 IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab: [(2014)6 SCC 466], observed that the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. may not be refused merely on a ground that the FIR/ Charge-sheet incorporate the offence under Section 307 IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered observations made in case of Dimpey Gujral V. UT : [(2013)11 SCC 497] accepting the settlement between parties for offence under Section 307 IPC and observed as under:- “Having said so, we would hasten 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:5238] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-450/2026] unnecessarily included in the charge-sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2022 (14) SCC 531 observed as follows:- “12. The High Court, therefore, having regard 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 non compoundable.” 12. In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases and considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and since both parties have amicably settled their dispute, the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and the respondents have no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed, this Court deems it just and proper to prevent the abuse of process of law by quashing the criminal proceedings in Cr. Case No. 273/2024 as a whole and to allow the present misc. petition. 13. As a result, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in Cr. Case No. 273/2024 arising out of FIR No. 224/2024 registered at Police Station, Ramganj, Ajmer as a whole are hereby quashed. 14. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 15. Since the parties have been entered into the compromise and on that basis, the criminal proceedings in Cr. Case No. 273/2024 have been quashed, the accused petitioner [2026:RJ-JP:5238] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-450/2026] no.2 Mansoor Khan S/o Shri Sharif, who is presently confined in judicial custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. However, in view of the provisions of Section 437- A CrPC (481 of BNSS 2023), the petitioner no.2 Mansoor Khan is directed to file a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety in the like amount within four weeks from today before the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court which will be effective for a period of six months thereafter with the stipulation that in the event of special leave petition being filed against this order or on grant of leave, he on receipt of the notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned jail superintendent for information and compliance. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/68