[2025:RJ-JP:36931]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2522/2024

1. Ramswaroop Bunkar S/o Shri Shambhu Dayal @ Prabhu Dayal Balai, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Mahendra Kalan, Harmada, Jaipur (West), Jaipur.

2. Mahendra S/o Goruram Balai, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Khora-Bisal, Kaladera, Jaipur (West), Jaipur.

3. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Nandram Bhargava, R/o Khora-

Bisal, Kaladera, Jaipur (West), Jaipur.

----Accused-Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

….Respondent

2. Ramlal S/o Shri Laduram Balai, R/o Akeda Dungar, Tehsil Amer, Harmada, Jaipur (West), Jaipur..

----Complainant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Karan Sharma for Mr. Dhruv Tailor for the complainant.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

11/09/2025

1. A prayer has been made to quash the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 183/2017, registered at Police Station Kaladera, District Jaipur Rural, for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

2. It has inter alia been stated that due to property dispute, the impugned FIR came to be lodged, however, during course of criminal trial, parties have mutually settled their dispute by way of compromise and the compromise has been produced before the trial Court which has been attested in respect of offences under Section 420 and 406 of IPC, whereas offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC have not been attested, being non-

compoundable offences. The certified copy of the order dated

22.02.2024 passed by the trial Court has been placed on record.

3. 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 a