[2026:RJ-JP:16200] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.451/2022 Kuka @ Surendra Singh Son Of Shri Shankar Singh, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village Saradhana, Police Station Sendra District Pali ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Victim ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Bhandari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP with Ms. Neha Goyal Mr. Rahul Patni with Mr. Saurabh Singh JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/04/2026 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred for quashing of FIR No.259/2021, registered with Police Station Beawer Sadar, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 363, 376 D & 328 IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and the entire proceedings arising out of the same including proceedings of Criminal Case No.365/2021, pending before the Court at Beawer on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the aforesaid impugned FIR and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has levelled allegations against the petitioner. However, at a later stage, she has [2026:RJ-JP:16200] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-451/2022] submitted a compromise before this Court, wherein she has admitted that name of the petitioner has been inadvertently mentioned in the impugned FIR. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of the aforesaid compromise submitted by the prosecutrix, the petitioner was granted benefit of bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court. He further submits that even during the course of trial when the statements of prosecutrix were recorded, she has not levelled any allegations against the petitioner and allegations have only been levelled against the co- accused, hence, under these circumstances, the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, but the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant accepted the factum of compromise between the parties. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Looking to the fact that after submission of charge-sheet, statements of the prosecutrix have been recorded before the Trial Court, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant criminal misc. petition with the expectation from the Trial Court to make all possible endeavours to speed up the pending proceedings and conclude the trial expeditiously, as early as possible. 6. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/9