[2025:RJ-JP:39639]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5450/2025 Vishnu Gaur Son Of Shri Rodulal, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Near Shitla Mata Mandir, Jahajpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner 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. Naveen Dhuwan Mr. Pradeep Bochaliya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Pradeep Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

25/09/2025

1. A joint prayer has been made to quash proceedings of Criminal Case No.1210/2015 (583/2018) pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur, arising out of FIR No.05/2015 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, District Jaipur for offences under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC and Section 66-D of IT Act, wherein charge-sheet has been filed for offences u/s. 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and Sections 66-C & 66-D of IT Act, in view of compromise arrived at between parties.

2. Allegation against petitioner is of siphoning off some amount of complainant, which was deposited for insurance policy.

It has inter alia been stated that a written compromise was submitted before the trial Court to drop the criminal proceedings u/s. 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and Sections 66-C & 66-D of IT Act. The trial Court attested and verified the compromise in respect of offences under Sections 419 & 420 IPC and Sections 66-C & 66-D of IT Act only, however, in respect of offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC, proceedings have not been dropped being non-compoundable offences. The certified copy of the order dated 06.08.2025 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