[2026:RJ-JP:5069]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 712/2026

1. Laxmikant Sharma S/o Shivcharan, Resident Of Near By Telephone Exchange Dhaula Kua, Mohalla Kaman, Tehsil, Kaman, District Bharatpur (Raj).

2. Shivcharan S/o Shir Revati Prasad Sharma, Resident Of Dhaula Kua, Mohalla Kaman, District Bharatpur (Raj).

3. Prem Devi Wife Of Shiv Charan, Resident Of Dhaula Kua, Mohalla Kaman, District Bharatpur (Raj).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Anugya Sharma D/o Of Shri Chhiddi Lal Sharma, Resident Of Ward No. 11, Hariyana Mohalla, Near Of Verma Nursing Home, Nadbai, Bharatpur (Raj).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Addl.GA For respondent no.2 Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

03/02/2026 By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this petition and the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 224/2017 (State Versus Laxmikant & Ors.) may kindly be quashed and set-aside in view of the compromise.”

2. Learned counsel submits that matrimonial acrimony accrued between parties has been amicably settled by way of compromise. He further submits that the petitioners filed an application before the trial court to drop the criminal proceedings under Section 498A and 406 IPC, but the trial court attested and verified the compromise for the offence under Section 406 IPC only, however in respect of section 498-A IPC, the proceedings have not been dropped being non-compoundable offence. The certified copy of the order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the trial court attesting the compromise has been placed on record.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant concurs with the factum of compromise. He further submits that the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners further in the matter. He has shown no objection in case the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners are quashed and set aside on the basis of the said compromise.

4. It has been jointly submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature, the alleged offence is not grievous and otherwise compoundable, the entire criminal proceedings as also the order dated 10.11.2025 qua Section 498A IPC may be quashed and set-aside in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Per Contra, Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable, therefore, the proceedings should not be quashed.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasmair Singh Versus State of Haryana [(2022) 9 SCC 73], while dealing with the quashment of matrimonial dispute, held that since parties buried hatched and decided to give quietus to proceedings which were lodged inter se, hence going by law declared in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in [(2012)10 SCC 303] held that case was eminently suitable to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashment of criminal proceedings.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2022 (14) SCC 531] observed as follows:

“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 consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, even if the offences are non compoundable.

8. The parties are present today before this Court. Their signature have been obtained and they have been duly identified by their respective advocates.

9. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon’