State Of Rajasthan, Through Its P.p v. Prashant Kumar Morotha S/o Nanagram, Resident Of Ramsar Palawala, Kanota, Distric

Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ram Prasad Sharma, Resident Of Kheda Ki Dhani, Char Kheda, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) Ramavtar S/o Srinarayan Sharma, Resident Of Kheda Ki Dhani, Char Kheda, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) Ramprasad Sharma S/o Srinarayan Sharma, Resident Of Kheda Ki Dhani, Char Kheda, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) Raju Sharma S/o Srinarayan Sharma, Resident Of Kheda Ki Dhani, Char Kheda, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) Hanuman Sharma S/o Shri Badri Narayan Sharma, Resident Of Kheda Ki Dhani, Char Kheda, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) Ganesh S/o Badri Narayan, Resident Of Kheda Ki Dhani, Char Kheda, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) Prabhu S/o Badri Narayan, Resident Of Kheda Ki Dhani, Char Kheda, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) Bhonri Lal S/o Govind Narayan, Resident Of Kheda Ki Dhani, Char Kheda, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) Rameshwar S/o Govind Narayan, Resident Of Kheda Ki Dhani, Char Kheda, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.)

10. Shankar S/o Govind Narayan, Resident Of Kheda Ki Dhani, Char Kheda, Kanota, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its P.p. Versus Prashant Kumar Morotha S/o Nanagram, Resident Of Ramsar Palawala, Kanota, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.K Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Anurag Shukla HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 21/08/2025

1. This misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed seeking to quash the FIR No.535/2025 registered at Police Station [2025:RJ-JP:33144] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4129/2025] Kanota, District Jaipur City (East) for offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 125, 324(4) and 352 of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ ST Act, on the basis of compromise arrived at between both parties.

2. It has been submitted that both parties are neighbours 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.

3. It has been submitted that apart from offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ ST Act, other offences are bailable and compoundable in nature.

4. A written compromise alongwith additional affidavit of complainant dated 21.08.2025 has been placed on record. Complainant, who is present in person, has no objection to quash the FIR and further investigation in the matter.

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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:33144] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4129/2025] etc; rape, dacoity, 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 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].

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 considering the fact that the dispute [2025:RJ-JP:33144] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4129/2025] has been amicably settled and complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioners further, this Court is of view that continuation of criminal proceedings in the impugned FIR, would not solve any purpose, rather same is a futile exercise. Therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petition.

8. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and FIR No.535/2025 registered at Police Station Kanota, District Jaipur City (East), with all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.

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