[2026:RJ-JP:9055]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1240/2026 Virendra Kumar Sharma Alias Bittu S/o Shri Mukeshchand Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of F-114, Sector No. 04, Vivekanand Nagar, Alwar ( Rajasthan).

----Accused Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

2. Bhudhar Meena S/o Shri Ramprasad Meena, Aged About

30 Years, Resident Of Dera, Tehsil- Raini, District Alwar (Rajasthan).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta, Advocate Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kasera, Advocate Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Dy. GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

26/02/2026

1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 BNSS for quashing FIR No. 0015/2026 registered at Police Station, Akhepura, District Alwar for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of compromise.

2. Both the parties are present in person today in the Court. Their signature have been obtained on the order sheet and they have been duly identified by their respective advocates.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and the victim-respondent no.2 have settled their dispute by way of compromise. The original compromise duly signed by both the parties and notarized from the Notary Public has been submitted, which is taken on record. He further submits that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the further proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 0015/2026. He has therefore, prayed to quash the impugned FIR No. 0015/2026 registered at Police Station, Akhepura, District Alwar and all subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

4. In order to support his contention that FIR/proceedings under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 can be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioner invites Court’s attention towards the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 5228 and the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kalu Lal Sahriya Versus State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5612, 7543 of 2024;

decided on 11.11.2024).

5. Learned counsel appearing for the victim-respondent no.2 does not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect. He submits that the victim respondent no.2 has no objection if FIR No. 0015/2026 registered at Police Station, Akhepura, District Alwar and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

6. Learned Dy. G.A. has opposed the same. He has submitted the factual report dated 25.2.2026, which is also taken on record.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record.

8. In the case of Ramawatar (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court has observed thus :

“12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and reiterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and the accused.

13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annul