[2026:RJ-JP:22112] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1713/2026 1. Deepmala Daughter Of Shri Rajkamal, Resident Of House Number 7 EWS, Khadepur Colony Baktoripurwa Nobasta, Police Station Hanumant Vihar, Kanpur City (Uttrapradesh) 2. Vishal S/o Shri Rajkamal, Resident Of House Number 7 EWS, Khadepur Colony Baktoripurwa Nobasta, Police Station Hanumant Vihar, Kanpur City (Uttrapradesh) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Akash Khandelwal S/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Jain Mohlla Ramgarh, Police Station Ramgarh Alwar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya Khandelwal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Nikhil Bothra, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 25/05/2026 1. Defects pointed out by the registry are waived. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard and this Criminal Misc. Petition is being decided finally at this stage. 2. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 23/69/25 titled Akash Versus Deepmala and others pending before Addl. Chief Judicial [2026:RJ-JP:22112] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-1713/2026] Magistrate, Ramgarh, District Alwar for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. 3. The petitioners and the respondent no.2 are present in person today in the Court. Their signature have been obtained in the Court’s order sheet and they have been duly identified by their respective counsel. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no.2 submitted a written complaint before the ACJM, Ramgarh, District Alwar, on the basis of which cognizance was taken against the petitioners and co-accused Neha for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. He further submits that the petitioner no.1 also lodged a criminal case against the respondent no.2 at Allahabad High Court, Uttar Pradesh, where a compromise was entered into between them. A copy of the compromise has been annexed with the petition as Annexure-3. Learned counsel also submits that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and despite the fact that co-accused Neha, against whom criminal proceedings are pending has not separately approached and not sought any relief from this Court, but the Court cannot overlook that the allegations levelled in the FIR are identical against both the petitioners and the co-accused Neha and the facts of the case are interdependent, therefore, for avoiding any abuse of the judicial process, entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 23/69/25 titled Akash Versus Deepmala and others pending before Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, District Alwar for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC against the petitioners and co-accused Neha be quashed and set-aside. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance [2026:RJ-JP:22112] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-1713/2026] upon the order dated 7.4.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanyukt Shekhari Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3377/2024; decided on 7.4.2026). 5. Learned counsel for the respondent also admits the factum of compromise and submits that the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners and the co-accused Neha further in the matter and he has no objection if the entire criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 23/69/25 are quashed and set- aside. 6. Learned PP has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in this case. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs State of Gujarat, reported in 2023 0 AIR(SC) 4444, has observed that -: “18. Now, we come to the case of accused no.2. By the order dated 11th May 2018, a special leave petition filed by accused no.2 was summarily dismissed without recording any reasons. The law is well settled. An order refusing special leave to appeal by a non- speaking order does not attract the doctrine of merger. At this stage, we may refer to a three judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Harbans Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (1982) 2 SCC 101. In paragraph 18, this Court held thus: “18. To my mind, it will be a sheer travesty of justice and the course of justice will be perverted, if for the very same offence, the petitioner has to swing and pay the extreme [2026:RJ-JP:22112] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-1713/2026] penalty of death whereas the death sentence imposed on his co-accused for the very same offence is commuted to one of life imprisonment and the life of the co-accused is shared (sic- spared). The case of the petitioner Harbans Singh appears, indeed, to be unfortunate, as neither in his special leave petition and the review petition in this Court nor in his mercy petition to the President of India, this all important and significant fact that the life sentence imposed on his co-accused in respect of the very same offence has been commuted to one of life imprisonment has been mentioned. Had this fact been brought to the notice of this Court at the time when the Court dealt with the special leave petition of the petitioner or even his review petition, I have no doubt in my mind that this Court would have commuted his death sentence to one of life imprisonment. For the same offence and for the same kind of involvement, responsibility and complicity, capital punishment on one and life imprisonment on the other would never have been just. I also feel that had the petitioner in his mercy petition to the President of India made any mention of this fact of commutation of death sentence to one of life imprisonment on his coaccused in respect of the very same offence, the President might have been inclined to take a different view on his petition.” (emphasis added) 19. We have found that the case of accused no 2 stands on the same footing as accused nos. 1, 5 and 13 acquitted by this Court. The accused no.2 must get the benefit of parity. The principles laid down in the case of Harbans Singh will apply. If [2026:RJ-JP:22112] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-1713/2026] we fail to grant relief to accused no 2, the rights guaranteed to accused no. 2 under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be violated. It will amount to doing manifest injustice. In fact, as a Constitutional Court entrusted with the duty of upholding fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, it is our duty and obligation to extend the same relief to accused no.2. Therefore, we will have to recall the order passed in the special leave petition filed by accused no.2.” 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows: “Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2022 (14) SCC 531 observed as follows:- “12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties [2026:RJ-JP:22112] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-1713/2026] have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non compoundable.” 10. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, coupled with the fact that dispute between the parties is civil in nature and both the parties have entered into a compromise, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings pending before the learned trial Court against the petitioners as well as the co-accused, who is not before this Court but whose case stands on the same footing as that of the petitioners, deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 23/69/25 titled Akash Versus Deepmala and others pending before Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramgarh, District Alwar for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC against the petitioners and co-accused Neha are hereby quashed and set-aside. 12. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/27