##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:5238]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 450/2026

1. Sharif Son Of Late Mandu, Aged About 47 Years,

2. Mansoor Khan Son Of Shri Sharif, Aged About 20 Years,

3. Bashir Mohammad S/o Son Of Shri Sharif, Aged About 24

Years,

All Resident Of Aagala Kankad Village Somalpur Police

Station Ramgunj District, Ajmer.

----Accused Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

2. Kamruddin Son Of Bhomaji, Aged About 48 Years,

3. Ramzan Son Of Bhomaji,

4. Roshni Bano Wife Of Ramzan,

5. Firoj Khan Son Of Ramzan,

6. Niyaz Son Of Ramzan,

All resident of Aagala Kankad, Village Somalpur, Police

Station Ramgunj, District, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Upadhyay, Advocate

Ms. Komal Shekhawat, Advocate

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy. GA

Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

04/02/2026

1. This petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by

the petitioners seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in Cr.

Case No. 273/2024 titled State Versus Shariff and others pending

before Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Ajmer.

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 03:22:12 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 07:06:40 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:5238] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-450/2026]

2. Today accused petitioners Sharif and Bashir Mohammad

alongwith the respondents no. 2 to 6 appeared in person before

this Court. They were directed to appear before Registrar (Judl.)

of this Court for verification and attestation of the compromise.

Pursuant thereto, the parties appeared before the Registrar (Judl.)

of this Court, their signature have been obtained on the order

sheet, they have been identified and the compromise has verified

by Registrar (Judl.) of this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

accused petitioner Mansoor Khan S/o Shri Sharif is in judicial

custody, therefore, he is not present today before this Court.

4. He further submits that the parties do not have any

animosity against each other and there was no pre-meditated

fight but on account of some sudden altercations / scuffle erupted

between parties on 27.6.2024, impugned FIR came to be lodged

against petitioners. He further submits that thereafter 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. They submitted an application

before the trial court for attesting the compromise, but the trial

court declined to drop the criminal proceedings for the offence

under Sections 452 and 307 IPC being non compoundable. The

compromise duly signed by the parties and attested by the Oath

Commissioner has been placed on record. Thus, he has prayed to

quash the criminal proceedings in Cr. Case No. 273/2024.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents concurs with the

factum of compromise. He further submits that the

complainant/victim do not want to prosecute the petitioners

(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 03:22:12 PM)

(Downloaded on 07/02/2026 at 07:06:40 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:5238] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-450/2026]

further in the matter. He has shown no objection in case criminal

proceedings in Cr. Case No. 273/2024 are quashed and set-aside

on the basis of compromise.

6. 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 petitioners would be

abuse of process of law, therefore, to secure ends of justice, the

criminal proceedings in Cr. Case No. 273/2024 be quashed, in

exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

7. Learned Dy. GA has submitted the offence under

Sections 307 and 452 IPC are not compoundable.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered

the material available on record.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs.

State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows:

“Quashing of of