[2026:RJ-JP:5719] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 837/2026 Jay Jain S/o Late Ajay Jain, R/o 73-74, Pratap Nagar, Yojna Agra Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Accused/Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent 2. Prachi Jain D/o Ajit Kumar Jain, R/o 82, Ganesh Vihar Colony, Laxmi Bhatta, Agra Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaman Singh, Adv. Mr. Renu Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Vijay Laxmi, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy.G.A. with Mr. Shubham Singh, AAAG Mr. Suresh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Neema Kaushal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 06/02/2026 1 ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls mDr ,dyihB vkijkf/kd fofo/k ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk] U;kf;d eftLVsªV] Øe&9] t;iqj egkuxj izFke ds ;gka izdj.k la[;k 136@2023 esa yafcr dk;Zokfg;ksa dks tks] izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k& 119@2023] iqfyl Fkkuk& efgyk Fkkuk ¼t;iqj 'kgj iwoZ½] ftyk& t;iqj 'kgj ¼iwoZ½] vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 498,] 406 Hkk-na-la- ls mn~Hkwn gqbZ] dks i{kdkjku~ ds e/; ijLij jkthukek gksus ds vk/kkj ij jn~n ,oa vikLr fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk ds lkFk izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2 ;kph&vfHk;qDr ,oa ifjokfn;k O;fDrxr :i ls tfj, vf/koDrkx.k vkt U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSa] muds vf/koDrkx.k us la;qDr :i ls [2026:RJ-JP:5719] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-837/2026] dFku fd;k gS fd i{kdkjksa ds e/; jkthukek gks pqdk gS ,oa i{kdkjku }kjk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa /kkjk 498,] 406 Hkk-na-la- esa jkthukek dk izkFkZuk i= rLnhd djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftlds Øe esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 406 Hkk-na-la- esa jkthukek izekf.kr fd;k tk pqdk gS] fdUrq /kkjk 498, Hkk-na-la- dk vijk/k jkthukek ;ksX; ugha gksus ls jkthukek rLnhd ugha fd;k x;k gS] vr% /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk esa varfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa ds rgr U;kf;d eftLVsªV] Øe&9] t;iqj egkuxj izFke ds eqdnek uacj 136@2023 esa yafcr dk;Zokfg;ka tks izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 119@2023] iqfyl Fkkuk& efgyk Fkkuk ¼t;iqj flVh iwoZ½ ls mn~Hkwr gqbZ gS] dks jkthukek gksus ds vk/kkj ij jn~n ,oa vikLr fd;k tkosA 3 fo}ku mi jktdh; vf/koDrk us mfpr vkns'k ikfjr fd, 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 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 regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have [2026:RJ-JP:5719] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-837/2026] 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 proceedings. 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 ,oa nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; jkthukek dks ns[krs gq, /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds rgr varfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, i{kdkjksa ds e/; jkthukek gksus dh fLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, gLrxr izdj.k la[;k 136@2023] U;kf;d eftLVsªV] Øe&9] t;iqj egkuxj izFke esa yafcr dk;Zokgh dks vikLr fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA 6 vr% ;g ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj U;kf;d eftLVsªV] Øe&9] t;iqj egkuxj izFke ds eqdnek uacj 136@2023 muoku ljdkj cuke t; tSu esa yafcr dk;Zokfg;ka tks izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 119@2023] iqfyl Fkkuk& efgyk Fkkuk ¼t;iqj 'kgj iwoZ½] ftyk& t;iqj 'kgj ¼iwoZ½ ls mn~Hkwr gqbZ gS] dks jkthukek gksus ds vk/kkj ij jn~n ,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 AKSHAY KUMAR PAREEK /136