[2026:RJ-JD:7185]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 949/2026 Umardin S/o Lt. Sh. Mukhatyar Khan, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Toshina, Ps Khunkhuna, District Didwana Kuchaman, Nagaur, Raj. (Now Newly Dist. Didwana Kuchaman)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Rajjak Mohammad S/o Lt. Sh. Noor Mohammad, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Toshina, Ps Khunkhuna, Teh. Didwana, Dist. Nagaur, Raj. (Now Newly Dist. Didwana Kuchaman)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP Mr. Himmat Singh Bhati HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

09/02/2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The parties are directed to file the same before the learned Trial Court and to pursue the matter in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the duly attested original compromise agreement dated 29.9.2025, which was perused by the Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel for the respondent is present and states that he admits the factum of entering into a compromise.

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.25/2013 dated

19.03.2013, registered at Police Station Khunkhuna, District Nagaur, for offences under Sections 380 and 414 of the IPC, and all further proceedings in Case No.92/2013, on the basis of the compromise deed dated 23.09.2025 arrived at between the parties.

The complainant had lodged an FIR against the petitioner and, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a final report before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court examined the final report and took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 380 and 451 of the IPC. Vide judgment/order dated 28.11.2019, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced. Thereafter, on 16.12.2019, an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.123/2019 was filed before the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Didwana. During the pendency of the said appeal, the parties, namely the complainant and the petitioner, entered into a compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter can be compromised at any stage of the proceedings. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramgopal & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012, decided on 29.09.2021)

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant do not dispute the factum of compromise and have no objection in view of the aforesaid judgment.

In the case of Ramgopal (ibid), the Apex Court also considered the judgments rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [(2019) 5 SCC

688]. It is held as under:-

“11. True it is that offences which are ‘non- compoundable’ cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of ‘compoundable’ offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

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