State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. vs Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.

Saurabh Sadargani S/o Shri Rajkumar Sadargani, R/o House No. 3-Na-7, Jawahar Nagar, P.s. Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioners State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Versus Kapil Dulani S/o Radha Kishan Dulan, R/o 1/1052, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Bhawani S. Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 07/08/2025

1. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by petitioners, seeking to quash the FIR No. 425/2023 registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, District Jaipur City (East) for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC qua petitioners, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties.

2. It has been submitted that the dispute between parties is private in nature and has amicably been settled and the complainant has decided not to pursue the criminal proceedings of the present FIR. [2025:RJ-JP:30548] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2657/2025] It has been submitted that a written compromise was submitted before the trial Court to drop the criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC. The trial Court attested and verified the compromise in respect of offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC only, however in respect of Section 120-B IPC, proceedings have not been dropped being non-compoundable offence. The certified copy of the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the trial Court has been placed on record.

3. 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 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 dacoity, rape, etc; [2025:RJ-JP:30548] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2657/2025] 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].

4. 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.”

5. In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, and considering the nature of offence and the dispute which is private in nature between parties as much as has been amicably settled, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petition.

6. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and FIR No. 425/2023 registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, District Jaipur City (East), alongwith all consequential proceedings qua petitioners, are hereby quashed [2025:RJ-JP:30548] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2657/2025] and set aside.

7. Since petitioner No.1 is stated to be in judicial custody and the impugned FIR has been quashed, it is hereby directed that petitioner No.1 be released forthwith.

8. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. S achin/8 (SUDESH BANSAL),J