[2026:RJ-JP:2746] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6334/2025 1. Dilsad son of Kamruddin, Resident of Tapukada, Police Station Tapukada, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan) 2. Kamruddin son of Rasool Khan, Resident of Tapukada, Police Station Tapukada, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan) 3. Sohel son of Kamruddin, Resident of Tapukada, Police Station Tapukada, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan) 4. Sahun son of Manphool, Resident of Nakhnol, Police Station Tapukada, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan) 5. Safed son of Kamru, Resident of Nakhnol, Police Station Tapukada, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan) 6. Momin son of Sarajudeen, Resident of Village Khohri Kalan, Tehsil and Police Station Tapukada, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan). 7. Sarajudeen son of Abdul Rajjak, Resident of Village Khohri Kalan, Tehsil and Police Station Tapukada, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan). 8. Sahabuddin @ Budin son of Rajjak, Resident of Village Khohri Kalan, Tehsil and Police Station Tapukada, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan). 9. Soheb son of Irfan, Resident of Village Khohri Kalan, Tehsil and Police Station Tapukada, District Khairthal- Tijara (Rajasthan). 10. Vaseem son of Deenu, Resident of Village Khohri Kalan, Tehsil and Police Station Tapukada, District Khairthal- Tijara (Rajasthan). 11. Junaid son of Sarra, Resident of Village Khohri Kalan, Tehsil and Police Station Tapukada, District Khairthal- Tijara (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through PP 2. Mustufa son of Bashir, age 26 years, Resident of Village Chundhika, Tehsil Tauru, District Nuh(Mewat) 3. Aamir son of Rafiq Ahmad, age 20 Years, R/o Sare-Khurd, Tehsil Tapukada, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aslam S. Khan For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Javed Mohd. Khan [2026:RJ-JP:2746] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6334/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/01/2026 1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS, the accused-petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.129/2025 registered at Police Station Tapukada, District Bhiwadi (Rajasthan), for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(3), 307 & 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. 2. Petitioner Nos.2, 3 & 4 and respondent Nos.2 & 3 are present in person and they have duly been identified by their counsel. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have settled their dispute amicably under the mediation of respectable persons of the society. Counsel submits that no offence punishable under Section 109(1) of BNS (Corresponding to Section 307 of IPC) is made out from the record. Counsel submits that bare perusal of the injury report of the victim would reveal that there is one fracture in the 5th metatarsal base right foot and rest of the injuries sustained to the injured are simple in nature. Counsel further submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. It is submitted that due to compromise, further proceedings in the aforesaid FIR are fruitless. The written compromise has been annexed with this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise. He submits that on the basis of compromise, impugned FIR may be quashed. [2026:RJ-JP:2746] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-6334/2025] 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since offence punishable under Section 109(1) of BNS is a heinous offence therefore, on the basis of compromise, FIR should not be quashed. 6. Following the analogy expounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Singh versus State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, while dealing with the issue to allow the settlement for offence under Section 109(1) of BNS, it has been observed that the petition under Section 528 of BNSS may not be refused merely on a ground that the FIR/Charge-sheet incorporate the offence under Section 109(1) of BNS. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered observations made in case of Dimpey Gujral & Ors. versus U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 497 accepting the settlement between parties for offence under Section 307 IPC and observed as under:- “Having said so, we would hasen 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2746] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-6334/2025] 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 unnecessarily included in the charge- sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties.” 7. In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for perusal of the Court and the fact that dispute has been resolved between the parties amicably and except one grievous injury, all injuries sustained to the injured are simple in nature, this Court feels that in order to establish harmony between the parties and give quietus to the litigation, it would be expedient that the impugned FIR is quashed. 8. 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 versus State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. versus Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and in Narendra Singh (supra) and Dimpey Gujral (supra), the FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties. [2026:RJ-JP:2746] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-6334/2025] 9. In view of the above, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR No.129/2025 registered at Police Station Tapukada, District Bhiwadi (Rajasthan), is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow. 10. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /87