[2025:RJ-JP:36065]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5020/2025 Ashutosh Kulshrestha Son Of Shri Nityanand Kulshrestha, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 38,g.p. Colony, New Sanganer Road, Police Station Muhana District Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Shankar Lal Jat Son Of Kishan Lal Jat, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 66,jaton Ka Mohalla Village Totoli, Police Station Chakshu, District Jaipur, At Present Resident Of Plot No. 59 B-2 S.m.s. Colony, Block B, Shipra Path, Maharani Farm, Jaipur (Raj).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Soni for Mr. Vijay Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Gaurav Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

08/09/2025

1. A joint prayer has been made to quash FIR No. 246/2020 registered at Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City (South) for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC qua petitioner, on the basis of compromise arrived at between both parties.

2. It has been stated that the property dispute between parties is personal and private in nature, which has amicably been settled and a compromise has been entered into between parties, stating therein that complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner further.

3. It has been stated that the original compromise dated 07.10.2024 has been placed in the file of S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 10926/2022 and a copy of same has been placed on record in present petition.

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 murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences aris