[2026:RJ-JP:3662] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7935/2025 1. Ajay Singh S/o Sh. Malaram, Aged About 64 Years, - R/o 65, Gayatri Nagar-A, Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Ps Shipra Path, Jaipur (Raj). ( Presently Accused- Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). 2. Smt. Vimla W/o Ajay Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 65, Gayatri Nagar-A, Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Ps Shipra Path, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Devkinanan Soni S/o Shri Triloknath Soni, Aged- Unknown R/o 87A, Dadabadi, Dada Gurudev Nagar, Malpura Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Sharma with Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Mr. Swapnil Singh & Mr. Ravi Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Akshaya Varma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 22/01/2026 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.531/2024 registered at Police Station Muhana, District Jaipur City (South) (Rajasthan), for offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 IPC. 2. After registration of the aforesaid FIR, the police conducted investigation in the matter and filed charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 & 120B of IPC. [2026:RJ-JP:3662] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7935/2025] 3. During trial, both the parties revolved their dispute amicably and executed a compromise-deed in this regard and they filed an application before the trial Court seeking permission to compound the aforesaid offences. 4. The trial Court vide order dated 15.11.2025 partly allowed the application and permitted to compound the offence under Section 420 IPC R/w Section 120B IPC but refused to compound the offence under Section 409 IPC R/w Section 120B IPC, as the same is not compoundable. 5. In these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition to quash the FIR on the ground that the parties have resolved their dispute. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant, while accepting the factum of compromise, submits that the complainant has no objection if the proceedings pending against the petitioners are quashed. 7. Perusal of the record would reveal that the dispute between the parties is of purely personal in nature with regard to the possession of the flat. 8. In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for perusal of this Court; considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is of purely personal in nature; and both petitioners and complainant have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute amicably and also finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by 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 [2026:RJ-JP:3662] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7935/2025] case of State of Haryana & Ors. versus Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties although the offence punishable under Section 409 IPC R/w Section 120B IPC is not compoundable. 9. In view of the above, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR No.531/2024 registered at Police Station Muhana, District Jaipur City (South) (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 Manoj Solanki /75