Kanina, Dist.- Mahendragarh (Haryana). vs The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

Sachin @ Tinnu @ Toniya S/o Shri Kanwarbhan @ Kanwarlal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Chelawas, P.s. Kanina, Dist.- Mahendragarh (Haryana). ----Petitioners

2. Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP Jagat Singh S/o Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Dheekwad, P.s. Mandhan, Dist.- Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP with Mr. Shubham Kumar Sain Ms. Neelam Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 18/08/2025

1. A joint prayer has been made to drop the criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.406/2015: State Vs. Mahesh & Ors. pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Behror, District Kotputli- Behror, in view of compromise entered into between petitioners and respondent No.2- complainant.

2. The common allegation against petitioners is to extort the vehicle and few articles from the complainant. Initially, FIR was registered for offence under Section 382 IPC, however, later on, [2025:RJ-JP:32223] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3908/2025] after submission of charge-sheet, the Court has framed charge for offence under Section 392/34 IPC. At this stage, complainant submitted an application before the trial Court stating therein that he does not want to continue criminal proceedings against the petitioners and is agreeable to drop the same.

3. Indisputably, vehicle and other articles have been released to the complainant and complainant, on previous date of hearing, appeared in person before this Court as well to express his consent to drop the criminal proceedings. Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2, is present and has no objection to drop the criminal proceedings qua petitioners.

4. Having considered the nature of allegations, this Court finds that once the complainant, who is the aggrieved person, has turned hostile and does not want to continue the criminal proceedings of present criminal case qua petitioners, continuation of criminal proceedings tantamount to wasting the precious time of trial court. Though, petitioners have criminal antecedents, yet in view of compromise entered into between parties, this Court is of the view that it would be just and proper to drop the criminal proceedings of present criminal case qua petitioners. It has been informed that in other cases, petitioners have already been acquitted.

5. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:32223] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3908/2025] 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, rape, dacoity, etc; or other 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.” [2025:RJ-JP:32223] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3908/2025] 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].

6. 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.”

7. In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, and taking into consideration the facts that; criminal trial is at initial stage; vehicle and other articles have already been released to complainant and complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners further, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petition.

8. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.406/2015: State Vs. Mahesh & Ors., pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Behror, District Kotputli- Behror, qua petitioners are hereby dropped/ quashed.

9. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sachin/159 (SUDESH BANSAL),J