[2026:RJ-JP:5617] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 817/2026 1. Shivram Saini S/o Shri Hansraj Saini, 2. Phool Singh Saini S/o Shri Hansraj Saini, 3. Ravi Saini S/o Ratan Lal Saini, 4. Pintu Saini S/o Shri Shankar Lal Saini, Respondents no. 1 to 4 are residing at Mali Mohalla, Dabar, District Sawai Madhopur. 5. Ashish Meena S/o Shri Nanagram Meena, R/o Tajpura, Dabar, District Sawai Madhopur. 6. Bantiram Saini S/o Ramprasad Mali, R/o Baad Mohanpur, District Sawai Madhopur. 7. Malkesh Saini S/o Shri Kamlesh Saini, R/o Bhanwarki, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Accused Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ….Respondent 2. Hardyesh Singh S/o Bacchan Singh, R/o 502, Patrakar Road, R.R. Palasiya, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent Complainant For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anju Meena, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy. GA Mr.Rajendra Singh Tanwar, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 06/02/2026 1. This petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the FIR No. 14/2026 registered at Police Station, Sanganer, Jaipur City (East) for the offence under [2026:RJ-JP:5617] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-817/2026] Sections 115(2), 127(2), 308(2), 140(3), 324(4) and 324(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. On 5.2.2026 when the matter was listed before this Court, the complainant respondent no.2 and victim Manvendra appeared in person before this Court and submitted that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. They were directed to appear before the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court for verification and attestation of the compromise. Pursuant thereto, they appeared before him, their signature were obtained, they were identified and the compromise was attested by the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court. 3. Today, victim Manvendra is present in person in the Court alongwith his counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties do not have any previous animosity against each other, but on account of some sudden altercations / scuffle erupted in this matter, on 11.1.2026, impugned FIR came to be lodged against petitioners. He further submits that 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 FIR No. 14/2026. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 concurs with the factum of compromise. He further submits that the complainant / victim do not want to prosecute the petitioners [2026:RJ-JP:5617] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-817/2026] further in the matter. He has shown no objection in case FIR No. 14/2026 is quashed and set-aside on the basis of compromise. 5. 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, FIR No. 14/2026 be quashed, in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 6. Learned Dy. GA has submitted that some offences being not compoundable, therefore, FIR should not be quashed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record. 8. 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:5617] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-817/2026] 9. 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.” 10. 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 the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and the respondent no.2 has 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 FIR No. 14/2026 and to allow the present misc. petition. 11. As a result, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR No. 14/2026 registered at Police Station, Sanganer, Jaipur City (East) is hereby quashed. 12. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 13. Since the parties have been entered into the compromise and on that basis, FIR No. 14/2026 has been quashed, the accused petitioners, who are presently confined in judicial custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. However, in view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (481 of BNSS 2023), each of the petitioner 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 [2026:RJ-JP:5617] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-817/2026] (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, they on receipt of the notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned jail superintendent for information and compliance. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/S-261