[2026:RJ-JP:6002]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 925/2026

1. Brijesh Son Of Godu Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Kanjar Basti, Dooni, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

(He is confined in Central Jail, Jaipur).

2. Sanjay Kanjar Son Of Shri Godu Lal, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Ward No.5, Kanjar Basti, District Tonk, Rajasthan

3. Vijay Kumar Teli Son Of Akash Teli, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Kanjar Basti, Ward No.5, Dooni, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

----Accused Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Dinesh Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Kalyan Sahay, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Morija Chomu, Police Station Samod, District Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramniwas Meena, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy. GA Mr. Gajendra Kumar Saini, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

09/02/2026

1. This petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the FIR No. 320/2025 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur City (South) for the offence under Setion 309(4) BNS and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Accused petitioner no.2 Sanjay Kanjar and petitioner no.3 Vijay Kumar Teli as well as the complainant respondent no.2 Dinesh Kumar Saini have appeared in person today before this Court, their signature have been obtained on the order sheet and they have been identified by their respective counsel.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accused petitioner no. 1 Brijesh S/o Godu Ram is in judicial custody, therefore, he is not present in person 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, 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. The compromise duly signed by the parties and notarized by the Notary Public has been placed on record. Thus, he has prayed to quash the FIR No. 320/2025 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur City (South) and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners, on the basis of compromise.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 concurs with the factum of compromise. He further submits that the complainant/victim do not want to prosecute the petitioners further in the matter. He has shown no objection in case FIR No. 320/2025 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur City (South) and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners, 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, FIR No. 320/2025 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur City (South) and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners, be quashed and set-aside, in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

7. Learned Dy. GA has submitted the offence under Section 309(4) BNS is 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 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