State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p v. Jameel Ahamad Son Of Late Abdul Gani Nagori, Aged About

Judgment

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Versus Jameel Ahamad Son Of Late Abdul Gani Nagori, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Mohalla Islampur, Near Akbari Masjid, Fatehpur Road, Police Station Kotwali, Sikar, District Sikar (Raj). Connected With ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6807/2022

2. Saleem Son Of Mohammad Ibrahim, Resident Of Deen Mohammad Road, Ward No. 10, Sikar, District Sikar (Raj). Mustfa Son Of Mohammad Ibrahim, Resident Of Deen Mohammad Road, Ward No. 10, Sikar, District Sikar (Raj). Mohammad Khalid Son Of Mohammad Shafiq, Resident Of Infront Of Akbari Masjid, Fatehpur Road, Sikar, District Sikar (Raj). ----Petitioners State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Versus Jameel Ahamad Son Of Late Abdul Gani Nagori, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Mohalla Islampur, Near Akbari Masjid, Fathpur Road, Police Station Kotwali, Sikar, District Sikar (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Jeetendra Kumar for Mr. R.D.S. Naruka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Sanjay Khedar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 22/08/2025

1. In both these petitions, a joint prayer has been made to quash FIR No.16/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, [2025:RJ-JP:33372] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-776/2023] District Sikar for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties.

2. Respondent No.2- Complainant is present in person, who is duly identified by his counsel, states that a compromise has been entered into with accused persons, he has no objection to quash the impugned FIR as a whole.

3. Allegation against petitioners was to prepare a forged patta in order to grab the immovable property of complainant. It has jointly been submitted that parties belong to same community and under misconception of correct facts, impugned FIR was lodged. Nevertheless, later on, with indulgence of friends and family, such misconception has been sorted out and the complainant, does not want to prosecute the petitioner further. A written compromise dated 22.08.2025 has been placed on record.

4. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:33372] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-776/2023] etc; rape, dacoity, 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, 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 that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.” The above principles of law have been followed and reiterated by the Apex Court, recently, in case of Naushey Ali and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2025) 4 SCC 78].

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [(2022) 14 SCC 531] observed as follows: “12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non- compoundable.”

6. In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, and considering the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled and complainant does not want to [2025:RJ-JP:33372] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-776/2023] prosecute the petitioners further, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petitions.

7. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and FIR No.16/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar, with all consequential proceedings as a whole, are hereby quashed and set aside.

8. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sachin/96-97 (SUDESH BANSAL),J

: Mr. Jeetendra Kumar for Mr. R.D.S. Naruka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Sanjay Khedar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 22/08/2025

1. In both these petitions, a joint prayer has been made to quash FIR No.16/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, [2025:RJ-JP:33372] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-776/2023] District Sikar for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties.

2. Respondent No.2- Complainant is present in person, who is duly identified by his counsel, states that a compromise has been entered into with accused persons, he has no objection to quash the impugned FIR as a whole.

3. Allegation against petitioners was to prepare a forged patta in order to grab the immovable property of complainant. It has jointly been submitted that parties belong to same community and under misconception of correct facts, impugned FIR was lodged. Nevertheless, later on, with indulgence of friends and family, such misconception has been sorted out and the complainant, does not want to prosecute the petitioner further. A written compromise dated 22.08.2025 has been placed on record.

4. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:33372] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-776/2023] etc; rape, dacoity, 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, 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 that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and fast category can be prescribed.” The above principles of law have been followed and reiterated by the Apex Court, recently, in case of Naushey Ali and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2025) 4 SCC 78].

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case of Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh [(2022) 14 SCC 531] observed as follows: “12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non- compoundable.”

6. In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, and considering the fact that the dispute has been amicably settled and complainant does not want to [2025:RJ-JP:33372] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-776/2023] prosecute the petitioners further, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petitions.

7. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and FIR No.16/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar, with all consequential proceedings as a whole, are hereby quashed and set aside.

8. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sachin/96-97 (SUDESH BANSAL),J