[2026:RJ-JP:9632] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1318/2026 1. Vinod Kumar Son Of Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Resident Of 841, Samad Gali, Yamuna Nagar (Hariyana). 2. Ashutosh Son Of Shri Vinod Kumar, Resident Of 841, Samad Gali, Yamuna Nagar (Hariyana). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Vimal Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Suresh Sharma, Resident Of Village Dafalpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj). At Present Resident Of 404, Green Triveni, guru Shikhar, Bad Peepli, Nindar, Jaipur, District Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/03/2026 1. The instant Cr. Misc. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Case No.296/2021 for offences under Sections 419, 420 & 120-B IPC arising out of FIR No.305/2020 registered at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, District Jaipur City (North) (Raj.) whereby, the learned Magistrate attested the compromise only to the extent of offences punishable under Sections 419 & 420 of IPC. [2026:RJ-JP:9632] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1318/2026] 2. After registration of the aforesaid FIR, the police conducted investigation in the matter and submitted charge-sheet before the concerned Court. The learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 & 120-B of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have entered into a compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat. It is submitted that copy of compromise deed has been produced before the trial Court but the trial Court has attested the compromise only to the extent of offences under Sections 419 & 420 of IPC, therefore, it is prayed that the order dated 17.02.2026 may be modified and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners for offence under Section 120-B IPC may be quashed. 4. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of compromise. 5. In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for my perusal; considering the fact that petitioners and complainant have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute 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 case of State of Haryana & Ors. versus Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the impugned order is liable to be modified in view of compromise arrived at between the parties although the offence [2026:RJ-JP:9632] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1318/2026] punishable under Section 120B of IPC alleged to be made out in the instant case is not compoundable. 6. In view of the above, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Case No.296/2021 to the extent of refusing to attest the compromise for offence under Section 120B IPC is quashed and set aside. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Case No.296/2021 arising out of FIR No.305/2020 registered at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, District Jaipur City (North) (Raj.) are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow. 7. Stay Application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /78