ORDER :

ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.

1. Parties are present in person and they have duly been identified by their respective 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.261/2025 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur (West) for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) & 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1) (s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have settled their dispute amicably and they have entered into compromise. It is submitted that due to compromise, further proceedings in the aforesaid FIR are fruitless and continuation thereof would be a futile exercise and a waste of precious judicial time and resources. The written compromise has been annexed with this petition.

4. In order to support his contention that FIR/proceedings under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘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 cases of Ramawatar versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 5228 and 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

5. 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 will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).

14. With respect to the second question before us, it must be noted that even though the powers of this Court under Article 142 are wide and far reaching, the same cannot be exercised in a vacuum. True it is that ordinary statutes or any restrictions contained therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on the Court’s power to do “complete justice”. However, this is not to say that this Court can altogether ignore the statutory provisions or other express prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated to take note of the relevant laws and will have to regulate the use of its power and discretion accordingly. The Constitution Bench decision in the case of Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India & Anr. has eloquently clarified this point as follows:

“48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 has the power to make such order as