[2025:RJ-JP:31385]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4924/2025

1. Gunjan Singh S/o Late Shri Vishwanath Singh, R/o Village Khadva Kunwar, Police Station Parasurampura, Tehsil Haraiya, District Basti, Uttar Pradesh,presently Residing At B-908, Ix Floor, Anukampa Hanging Garden, Jaisinghpura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

2. Rajkiran Yogi S/o Madan Lal Yogi, R/o Village Ukhlana, Police Station Aligarh, District Tonk, Proselyte Residing At Village Kushtala, Police Station Ravanjanadungar, District Sawai Madhopur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Tikendra Mudgal S/o Khacheri Ram Sharma, R/o 20-A, Bhagwati Nagar, Kartarpura, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukeshh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Pankaj Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

12/08/2025

1. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by petitioners, seeking to quash the FIR No. 05/2015 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Jaipur for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 66-C and 66-D IT Act qua petitioners, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties.

2. It has been submitted that in respect of some business transaction, the impugned FIR was lodged, however, thereafter, the dispute between parties, has amicably been settled and the complainant has decided not to pursue the criminal proceedings of the present FIR.

3. It has further been submitted a written compromise was submitted before the trial Court to drop the criminal proceedings under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 66-C and 66-D IT Act. The trial Court attested and verified the compromise in respect of offence under Sections 419 and 420 IPC and Sections 66-C and 66-D IT Act only, however, for remaining offences, proceedings have not been dropped being non-compoundable offences. The certified copy of the order dated

06.03.2025 passed by the trial Court has been placed on record.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows:

“57. 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 of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-

being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like mu