[2026:RJ-JP:2779]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8122/2025 Mohammed Arshi S/o Fareed, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Hn 64 Kesar Bagh Borkheda, Kota City Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

2. Jiya Ul Huk @ Adil S/o Sabir Uddin, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bakshi School Ke Piche Borkheda, Kota Rajasthan (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Harshita Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Ankur Singh Tomar, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

21/01/2026

1. Parties are present and they have been duly identified by their respective counsel.

2. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS, the accused-petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.466/2023 registered at Police Station Borkheda, District Kota City for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504 & 34 of IPC along with subsequent proceedings arising out of it.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR was lodged by complainant-respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504 & 34 of IPC. It is submitted that after investigation, police submitted charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 324 & 326 of IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. Learned counsel contends that after hearing both the parties on the issue of charge, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 341 & 504 of IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act were framed against the petitioner on 14.08.2024. It is contended that both the parties are close relatives as the accused-petitioner is brother-in-law (Jija) of the injured/complainant and they have amicably resolved their dispute by entering into a compromise. It is contended that an application was also filed to drop the proceedings on the basis of compromise but vide order dated 03.07.2025 the learned trial court partly accepted the said application only to the extent of verification of compromise for offence punishable under Sections 323, 341 & 504 of IPC and the trial court declined to verify the compromise for the rest of offences as same are not compoundable. It is also evident that injury sustained to injured has been opined as grievous in nature and not dangerous to life. It has also been submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedents. It is submitted that due to compromise, the impugned FIR and consequential criminal proceedings are fruitless.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise. He submits that on the basis of compromise, impugned FIR along with consequential criminal proceedings may be quashed.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is a heinous offence, therefore, impugned FIR and consequential criminal proceedings should not be quashed on the basis of compromise.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dimpey Gujral & Ors. Vs. U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. (2013)11 SCC 497) has considered and accepted 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