[2025:RJ-JP:50941]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7003/2025

1. Syojiram Son Of Baluram Gurjar, Resident Of Phagi, Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural.

2. Kedar Son Of Baluram Gurjar, Resident Of Phagi, Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural.

3. Baluram Son Of Nathulal, Resident Of Phagi, Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor.

2. Vijay Singh Son Of Ravindar Singh, Resident Of Mangal Niwas, Sangam Cinema Ke Pas, Sanganer, Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur City (South), Jaipur.

3. Keshav Son Of Shri Rameshwar Gurjar, Resident Of Kasba Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.

4. Ashwani @ Rahul Son Of Keshavraj Gurjar, Resident Of Kasba Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Ankit Khandelwal, for complainants HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

17/12/2025

1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, the accused-petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.07/2022 registered at Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323 & 341 of IPC. During the course of investigation, offences under Sections 307 & 34 of IPC have been found proved against the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of scuffle, present FIR was lodged by the complainants-

respondents for the offences under Sections 143, 323 & 341 of IPC. During the course of investigation, police found offences under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC against the petitioners and removed Section 143 of IPC. Counsel further submits that parties have settled their dispute amicably. He further submits that petitioners are not habitual offenders and dispute arose between the parties due to some misunderstanding. It is further submitted that due to compromise, further proceedings in the FIR are fruitless and there is minimal chance of convicting the accused- petitioners for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 307 & 34 of IPC. The written compromise has been annexed with this petition.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor places verification report dated 20.11.2025 received from the SHO, Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural. According to which, parties have entered into compromise. The said report is taken on record.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise.

5. Following the analogy expounded by the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014)6 SCC 466, while dealing with the issue to allow the settlement for offence under Section 307 IPC, it has been observed that the petition under Section 528 BNSS may not be refused merely on a ground that the FIR/Charge-sheet incorporate the offence under Section 307 IPC. The Hon’ble Apex Court has considered observations made in case of Dimpey Gujral & Ors. Vs. U.T., Chandigarh &

Ors. (2013)11 SCC 497 accepting the settlement between parties for offence under Section 307 IPC and observed as under:-

“Having said so, we would hasen to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/ victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/ charge-sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under Section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Co