[2026:RJ-JP:10320]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1433/2026

1. Shaitan Gurjar S/o Sushpal, Aged About 24 Years, Makarwali Road Kacchi Basti, Opp. Ramdev Mandir, Ramdev Nagar, Ajmer (Raj).

2. Bablu S/o Laxman Gurjar, Aged About 25 Years, U.t.i.

Colony Ke Piche Ramdev Nagar,katchi Basti, Ajmer (Raj).

3. Kasmlesh Gurjar S/o Ramratna Singh Gurjar, Aged About

24 Years, 227, Kacchi Basti Makarwali Road, Gali No. 2, Ramdev Nagar, Ajmer (Raj).

4. Shivraj S/o Mohan, Aged About 25 Years, Makarwali Road, Gali No. 02 Ramdev Nagar, Ajmer (Raj).

5. Nitin Gurjar S/o Ramdev, Aged About 20 Years, Ward No.

59, Ghandi Nagar Gali No. 02, Chorasiyawas, Ajmer (Raj).

6. Manish Gurjar S/o Hardev Gurjar, Aged About 28 Years, 578/3, Jawahar Nagar, Gurjar Mohalla, Ajmer (Raj).

7. Gajraj Mehra S/o Ramesh Chand Mehra, Aged About 26 Years, B-05/57, Ajmer (Raj).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

2. Om Prakash S/o Bagharam, Aged About 20 Years, Didwana Dist. Nagaur (Raj).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshat Jain Mr. Sharukh Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

10/03/2026

1. Petitioners are present in person and they have duly been identified by their counsel.

2. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed on behalf of the accused petitioners for quashing the impugned FIR No.50/2026 registered at Police Station Krishnaganj, District Ajmer for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) & 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015)

along with all subsequent proceedings arising out of it.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have settled their dispute amicably and they have entered into compromise. The written compromise has been annexed with this petition.

4. Complainant, who is present in person, submits that he has no objection if the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings are quashed.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the FIR has been registered under the provisions of SC/ST Act, the same cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. He, however, accepts the factum of compromise having been entered into between the parties without any coercion and duress.

6. In order to support his contention that FIR/proceedings under the provisions of SC/ST Act can be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioners invites attention of this Court towards the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 5228

7. In the above referred case of Ramawatar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the following:

“12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and reiterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and the accused.

13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise wil