[2026:RJ-JP:21505] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 315/2016 Sunil Tak s/o. Shri C.L. Tak, R/o 41, Sanjay Marg, Hatroi Fort, Jaipur ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ……..Respondent 2. B. Devraj S/o (Late) Sri B. Aasandas, R/o 42, Sanjay Marg, Hatroi Fort, Jaipur ----Complainant-Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6343/2015 1. Maharani Royal Developers Pvt Ltd, having its registered office at through Director Mr. Amit Tak 2. Amit Tak son of Mr. Anil Tak, R/o 41, Sanjay Marg, Hatroi Fort, Jaipur ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor …..Respondent 2. B. Devraj S/o (Late) Sri B. Aasandas, R/o 42, Sanjay Marg, Hatroi Fort, Jaipur ----Complainant-Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6344/2015 Anil Tak s/o Shri C.L. Tak, R/o 41, Sanjay Marg, Hatroi Fort, Jaipur ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor …..Respondent 2. B. Devraj S/o (Late) Sri B. Aasandas, R/o 42, Sanjay Marg, Hatroi Fort, Jaipur ----Complainant-Respondent [2026:RJ-JP:21505] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-315/2016] For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Riddhima Gupta, Mr. Vikram Singh and Ms. Nidhi Samodia on behalf of Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakad, P.P. along with Mr. Narendra Kumar, Inspector, S.H.O., Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur (South) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 21/05/2026 1. The present criminal misc. petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the FIR No.432/2015 (dated 30.11.2015) registered at Police Station Vidhayak Puri, District Jaipur (South), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a compromise has arrived at between the parties and they have amicably settled their dispute, therefore, FIR No.432/2015 (dated 30.11.2015) registered at Police Station Vidhayak Puri, District Jaipur (South), be quashed and set aside. 3. This Court vide order dated 05.05.2026, directed the Investigating Officer to verify the compromise arrived at between the parties and to submit its report before the Court. 4. The investigating Officer, Mr. Narendra Kumar, Inspector, S.H.O., Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur (South), is present in person before this Court and states that the compromise has been verified by taking an affidavit of the complainant. [2026:RJ-JP:21505] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-315/2016] 5. The affidavit of the complainant in support of the compromise is taken on record. 6. Considered the submissions and perused the material made available on record, so also the affidavit of the complainant in support of the compromise, submitted by the Investigating Officer before this Court. 7. A bare perusal of the affidavit of the complainant in support of the compromise shows that the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled by them. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 has observed as under:- “57. 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. 58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an [2026:RJ-JP:21505] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-315/2016] exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.” [2026:RJ-JP:21505] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-315/2016] 9. In view of the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties, it would be a futile exercise to continue the criminal proceedings because ultimately now there are bleak chances of conviction in the matter. 10. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the FIR No.432/2015 (dated 30.11.2015) registered at Police Station Vidhayak Puri, District Jaipur (South), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and all consequential proceedings are required to be quashed ans set aside in the interest of justice and so also to relieve the trial Courts from excessive workload by putting an end to the proceedings of cases where it is felt that because of compromise between the parties now there are bleak chances of conviction. 11. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. FIR No.432/2015 (dated 30.11.2015) registered at Police Station Vidhayak Puri, District Jaipur (South), for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC and all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside. 12. The stay applications and pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. 13. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected files. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J 15-17/ARTI SHARMA