[2026:RJ-JD:662]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 10220/2025

1. Suryaprakash S/o Shri Bedaram, Aged About 23 Years, R/

o Derajsar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu

2. Lalchand S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Derajsar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu

3. Dalip S/o Late Lichhmanram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Derajsar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu

4. Bheraram S/o Shri Hariram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Derajsar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu

5. Vinod S/o Shri Khinvaram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Derajsar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Pp

2. Dalip S/o Shri Gopalram, R/o Derajsar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu. (Injured)

3. Krishna Kumar S/o Shri Gopalram, R/o Derajsar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagat Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit,PP Mr. Pankaj Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

07/01/2026 This instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 335/2025 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu for the offences under Section 115(2), 140(3), 310(2), 127(2) and

133 of BNS.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of trial, the parties have been arrived at a settlement and have filed compromise in the matter. The compromise was filed before the learned trial Court on 02.12.2025, the certified copy of which is also placed before this Court at page No.61. Upon consideration the learned trial Court has discharge the petitioner in the compoundable offence, however ordered to continue the trial and refuse to discharge the petitioner qua the offences which were not compoundable under Section 310(2) of BNS. The compromise arrived between the parties is not disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant, who is present. It is also seen that although the offence involves under Section 310(2) of BNS, however, looking to the facts of the case, the allegation levelled against the petitioners are regarding taking of 4 mobiles as well as Rs.6,000/- from the complainant. However, it is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present FIR is outcome of an earlier FIR which was registered by Surya Prakash who one of the accused in the present case, against Krishan Kumar who is the complainant/victim and therefore, there being cross FIRs the matter was amicably settled and in the interest of justice, the proceedings are quashed.

Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prashant Prakash Ratnaparki and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. passed in SLP (Criminal) No.2628/2025, the relevant para reads as under:-

“5. The matter was settled amicably between the accused and respondent No.2-complainant. The High Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of 2025 Court, while partially allowing the quashing petition filed under Section 528 BNSS [Section 482 CrPC], was of the opinion that in exercise of its inherent powers, the FIR could be quashed on the basis of a compromise insofar as the offences were personal to the complainant. However, the High Court refrained from quashing the offence of dacoity punishable under Section 310(2) of the BNS [Section 395 of the IPC], on the ground that it was not an offence personal to the complainant, as the alleged act had occurred within the premises of the school and pertained to its property. In arriving at this conclusion, the High Court took into account the objections raised on behalf of the school, which asserted that it was the victim of the alleged offending act. Accordingly, the High Court vide impugned order dated 31st January, 2025 directed that the proceedings arising out of the FIR would continue in Crl. Appeal@ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2628 of

2025

10. To sustain a charge of dacoity under Section 310(2) of the BNS [Section 395 of t