##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:20621]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 582/2026

1. Vikram Guleriya Son Of Shri Bajrang Lal Guleriya,

Resident Of B-13, Tara Marg, Hanuman Vatika, Hanuman

Nagar, Jaipur West.

2. Anuj Beniwal Son Of Shri Devndra Kumar Beniwal,

Resident Of Ward No. 14, Tibbi Hanumangarh, Raj.

3. Mam Raj Singh Son Of Shri Jagna Ram, Resident Of

Village Dudi Ki Dhani, Kari, Distt. Jhunjhunu.

----Accused/Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Rakesh Kumar Son Of Shri Richpal Singh, Resident Of

6/902, Royal Green, Sirsi Road, Jaipur West, Raj.

----Complainant/Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Gaharana

Mr. Abhishek Singh

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP

Mr. Dharmendra Jain

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI

Order

15/05/2026

1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by

the petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing

of FIR No.0321/2023 dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure-1), registered

at Police Station Murlipura, District Jaipur (West), for the alleged

offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 384

and 120-B of IPC, 1860 and all consequential proceedings arising

therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset,

submit that the FIR in question arises out of an inter-se dispute

between the parties and as the parties have arrived at a

compromise dated 29.12.2025, a copy of which has been annexed

(Uploaded on 16/05/2026 at 01:45:28 PM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 01:16:24 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:20621] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-582/2026]

with the petition as Annexure-6, the FIR in question deserves to

be quashed in view of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported

in (2019) 5 SCC 688

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2- complainant

while acknowledging the factum of compromise between the

parties submits that the respondent No.2 - complainant has

willingly arrived at the said compromise and has no objection if

the FIR in question is quashed.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has handed over the factual report

dated 13.05.2026 submitted by the concerned Investigating

Officer, wherein the factum of compromise being entered into

between the parties has been confirmed and thus, he submits that

in view of the compromise entered into between the parties,

appropriate order be passed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

6. Perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that the dispute

between the accused-petitioners and the complainant was

primarily with respect to commercial transaction arising out of a

partnership venture, which has been amicably settled between the

parties by executing the compromise dated 29.12.2025

(Annexure-6).

7. In pursuance to the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by this

Court, the Investigating Officer was directed to submit the status

(Uploaded on 16/05/2026 at 01:45:28 PM)

(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 01:16:24 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:20621] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-582/2026]

report with respect to the compromise entered into between the

parties. Factual report in that regard has been received and is

taken on record, wherein the Investigating Officer has confirmed

the factum of compromise being entered into between the parties.

The antecedents of the petitioners have also been placed on

record.

8. From the material on record, it is apparent that the dispute

has amicably been settled between the parties. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court recently in K. Bharthi Devi and Anr. Vs. State

of Telangana & Anr. arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.4353 of

2018 vide judgment dated 03.10.2024, while dealing with a

petition seeking quashing of FIR involving alleged offences under

Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, 1860, has followed the law laid

down in Gian Singh (supra) and reiterated that there are certain

offences which overwh