[2026:RJ-JP:22752] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2893/2026 1. Changa Khan S/o Aasin, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Kunda Ka Bas, Sikri Chowk No. 1, Police Station Sikri, District Deeg, Rajasthan. 2. Timmi Urf Iqbal S/o Changa Khan, R/o Kunda Ka Bas, Sikri Chowk No. 1, Police Station Sikri, District Deeg, Rajasthan. 3. Hanfeef S/o Sakur, R/o Kasba Sikri Deeg, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, through the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Ramveer Singh Son Of Shri Bhim Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Wajeer Kheri, PS Sikri District Deeg, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mustak Ahmed, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP Mr. Saddik Ahmed Khan, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 27/05/2026 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 BNSS for quashing FIR No. 398/2025 registered at Police Station, Sikri, District Deeg for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 307, 352, 3(5) and 119(1) of BNS, 2023 and subsequent criminal proceedings. 2. The petitioners are present in person today in the Court. Their signature have been obtained on the order sheet and they have been duly identified by their advocate, whereas the complainant Ramveer Singh is present through V.C., who is identified by his advocate. [2026:RJ-JP:22752] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2893/2026] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties do not have any previous animosity against each other, but on account of some sudden altercations / scuffle erupted in this matter, on 11.11.2025 impugned FIR came to be lodged against petitioners. He further submits that the parties have entered into a compromise and buried their hatchet in order to maintain peace and harmony in their life and to maintain cordial relations between them. The original compromise has been placed on record. Thus, he has prayed to quash the FIR No. 398/2025 and subsequent criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR on the basis of compromise. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 concurs with the factum of compromise. He further submits that the complainant / victim does not want to prosecute the petitioners. He has shown no objection in case FIR No. 398/2025 and subsequent criminal proceedings are quashed and set-aside on the basis of compromise. 5. Further, it has been jointly submitted that in view of the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between parties, the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be abuse of process of law, therefore, to secure ends of justice, FIR No. 398/2025 and subsequent criminal proceedings be quashed, in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 6. Learned PP has submitted that some of the alleged offences being not compoundable, FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings should not be quashed. [2026:RJ-JP:22752] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2893/2026] 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record. 8. The 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. The 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 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 legal proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases and considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and since both the [2026:RJ-JP:22752] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2893/2026] parties have amicably settled their dispute, the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and the respondent no.2 has no objection if impugned FIR No. 398/2025 and subsequent criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR are quashed, this Court deems it just and proper to prevent the abuse of process of law by quashing the FIR No. 398/2025 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom and to allow the present misc. petition. 11. As a result, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the FIR No. 398/2025 registered at Police Station, Sikri, District Deeg and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 12. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J 89/DK