[2026:RJ-JP:12640] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2729/2021 Mohammad Rehan Mansoori Son Of Jaan Mohammad, Resident Of Village Bihari, Near Safai, Police Station Safai, District Itawa ( Uttar Pradesh) At Present R/o Mohalla Hussainganj Ward No. 4, New Madina Colony, Sikar, Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar (Raj). ----Accused/Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Basruddin Son Of Shri Mojam Khan, Resident Of Survey No. 97, Bajrang Nagar, Kachchi Basti, New Sanjay Nagar, Amani Shah Ka Nala, Bhatta Basti, Jaipur (Raj). ----Complainant/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/03/2026 1. The instant misc. petition is listed before this Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided on 15.01.2026), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in various matters, interim orders have been passed in criminal revision petitions and petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as a result of which trial relating to serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, dowry death, etc., could not proceed and remained stalled/held up due to the passage of considerable time. [2026:RJ-JP:12640] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2729/2021] 2. Taking serious note of the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter, directions have been issued to this Court and other High Courts to take up such like matters on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring the hearings to subsequent dates. 3. By way of filing the instant criminal miscellaneous petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No. 0692/2018 registered at the Police Station Muhana, District Jaipur City (South), for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 498-A & 304-B of IPC. 4. It has been averred in the grounds of the petition that the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It has also been averred in the petition that statement of the complainant- respondent has been recorded and he has not supported the version of the prosecution, therefore, he has been declared hostile. It has also been averred in the petition that the complainant-respondent has entered into a compromise with the petitioner. The compromise has been produced on the record as Annexure-2 and accordingly, a prayer has been made for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made in the petition. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:12640] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2729/2021] 7. Perusal of the record indicates that the compromise has been enclosed with the petition as Annexure-2 which indicates that the complainant does not wish to prosecute the petitioner any more. 8. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are under Section(s) 498-A & 304-B IPC and the same are not compoundable. If the complainant has not supported the version of the prosecution before the Trial Court and if he has been declared as hostile, the Trial Court would be at liberty to look into this factual aspect of the matter, at the time of final conclusion of the trial and pronounce the judgment strictly in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Puneet-Shivam/11