SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 10538

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
SURESH SHARMA S/O LATE SHRI GOPI RAM SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMP / 1156 / 2026



[2026:RJ-JP:11348]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1156/2026 Suresh Sharma S/o Late Shri Gopi Ram Sharma, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Plot No. 432, Pratap Nagar Vistar Police Station Murlipura District Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

2. Shri Bhagchand Jain S/o Ratan Lal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Hamalan Ka Mohallah Gola Bajar Sambhar Lake District Jaipur Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

17/03/2026

1. The instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of criminal proceedings pending before learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Case No.250/2015 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC arising out of FIR No.486/2011 registered at Police Station JDA, District Jaipur, on the basis of compromise.

2. After registration of the aforesaid FIR, the police conducted investigation in the matter and submitted charge-sheet before the concerned Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties have entered into a compromise. It is submitted that copy of compromise deed has been produced before the trial Court but the trial Court has attested the compromise only to the extent of offence under Section 420 of IPC vide order dated 29.07.2024, therefore, it is prayed that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner for offences under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. Learned State counsel does not dispute the factum of compromise.

5. In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for my perusal; considering the fact that petitioners and complainant have arrived at compromise and settled their dispute and also finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh versus State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. versus Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court against the petitioner is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties although the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC alleged to be made out in the instant case are not compoundable.

6. In view of the above, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before learned Additional Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Criminal Case No.250/2015 for offences under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC arising out of FIR No.486/2011 registered at Police Station JDA, District Jaipur are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.

7. Stay Application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /140

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top