[2026:RJ-JP:6315] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 681/2026 Brajesh Kumar Lata S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Lata, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village / Post Sakat, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. 3. Manish Singh Tomar S/o Late Shri Anoop Singh Tomar, R/o 106, Hari Nagar, Gokulpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Victim D/o ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagmohan Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy.GA Mr. Chitransh Saxena & Mr. Vipul Ojha for Mr. Kapil Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 10/02/2026 1. Matter comes up on an application(IA No.1/2026) for taking amended cause title on record. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Amended cause title filed with the application is taken on record. 3. This criminal misc. petition has been filed under section 528 BNSS for quashing the FIR No.40/2025 registered at Police station Banipark, Jaipur (West) for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352, 132, 121(1) & 74 of BNS and all subsequent proceedings arising thereof. [2026:RJ-JP:6315] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-681/2026] 4. Today, the petitioner as also the complainant-Respondent No.2- Manish Singh Tomar and respondent no.3 victim are present in person before this court, their signatures have been obtained on the court’s order sheet and they have been duly identified by their respective counsels. 5. Leaned counsel for the petitioner 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 03.04.2025, impugned FIR came to be lodged against the accused petitioner. 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. The original compromise duly signed by the parties and attested by the Notary Public has been placed on record. Thus, he has prayed to quash the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising thereof. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent and victim concurs with the factum of compromise. He further submits that the complainant and victim do not want to prosecute the petitioner further in the matter. He has shown no objection in case impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising thereof are quashed and set-aside on the basis of compromise. 7. 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 continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner would be abuse of process of law, therefore, to secure ends of justice, [2026:RJ-JP:6315] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-681/2026] impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising thereof be quashed, in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 8. Learned Dy. GA has submitted the offence under Sections 132, 121(1) & 74 of BNS are not compoundable. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record. 10. 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.” 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 [2026:RJ-JP:6315] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-681/2026] 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 respondent and complainant have no objection if the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising thereof are quashed, this Court deems it just and proper to prevent the abuse of process of law by quashing the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising thereof and to allow the present misc. petition. 13. As a result, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and FIR No.40/2025 registered at Police station Banipark, Jaipur (West) and all subsequent proceedings arising thereof, as a whole are hereby quashed. 14. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/134