[2026:RJ-JP:22599] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3401/2026 Aditya Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward 20, Manpura, Jatwali Dhani, Behror, Distict Kotputli-Behror. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Balveer Singh S/o Shri Sohan Lal Singh, aged about 57 years, R/o Janoothar, Police Station Janoothar, District Deeg (Raj.) 3. Yogendra Singh S/o Shri Balveer Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Janoothar, Police Station Janoothar, District Deeg (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, Advocate Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 27/05/2026 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 BNSS for quashing FIR No. 399/2025 registered at Police Station Ramnagariya, District Jaipur City (East) for the offence under Sections 351(2), 115(2), 126(2), 307 and 189(2) of BNS and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The petitioner, complainant and the victim 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. [2026:RJ-JP:22599] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-3401/2026] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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, impugned FIR came to be lodged against petitioner and others. 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 duly signed by the parties and notarized by the Notary Public has been placed on record. Learned counsel also submits that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and despite the fact that co-accused Gaurav Yadav, Lokendra, Ashwini and others have not separately approached and not sought any relief from this Court, the Court cannot overlook that the allegations levelled in the FIR are identical against the petitioner and the co-accused persons and the facts of the case are interdependent, therefore, for avoiding any abuse of the judicial process, FIR No. 399/2025 and subsequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner and other co-accused persons be quashed and set-aside. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance 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). 4. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 also admits the factum of compromise and submits that the complainant and victim do not want to prosecute the petitioner and other co-accused persons further in the matter and they have [2026:RJ-JP:22599] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-3401/2026] no objection if FIR No. 399/2025 and subsequent criminal proceedings against them are quashed and set-aside 5. Learned PP has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in this case. 6. 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:22599] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-3401/2026] 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:22599] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-3401/2026] passed in the special leave petition filed by accused no.2.” 7. 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.” 8. 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.” 9. 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 FIR No. [2026:RJ-JP:22599] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-3401/2026] 399/2025 and subsequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner and other co-accused persons, who have not before this Court but whose case stands on the same footing as that of the petitioner, deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. The FIR No. 399/2025 registered at Police Station, Ramnagaria, Jaipur City (East) and subsequent criminal proceedings against the petitioner and other co-accused persons are hereby quashed and set-aside. 11. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK-138