[2025:RJ-JP:12175]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1517/2025

1. Rakesh Singh S/o Karan Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Gandhi Colony, Gali No. 11, Kota J.P.S. Railway Colony, Kota City (Raj).

2. Arun Meghwal S/o Ramgopal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kala Talab, Tehsil Ladpura, P.S. Borkhera, Kota City (Raj).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.

----Non-Complainant/Respondent

2. Ram Kumar S/o Panna Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Keshar Vihar, Annatpura P.S. Annatpura, Kota City (Raj).

----Complainant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardev Puri Goswami for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

18/03/2025

1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for quashing of FIR No.80/2025 (dated 11.02.2025) registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, District Kota City for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2)(a), 308(2), 316(2), 318(4), 356(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 338 & 336(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) &

3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant submit that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and they have settled their dispute amicably and copy of the same annexed with the petition (Annexure-2). Therefore, the FIR No.80/2025 registered at Police Station Udhyog Nagar, District Kota City be quashed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments and the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant acknowledges the factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties and on instructions from the complainant, states that the complainant has no objection if the impugned FIR alongwith all consequential proceedings against the present accused-petitioners are quashed.

5. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record.

6. A bare perusal of the material made available on record shows that the dispute between the parties has amicably been settled by them.

7. 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 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 tha