State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p v. Nitin Kumar Meena Son Of

Nitin Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Ratanpura, Post Neemla, Rajgarh, District Alwar. At Present D-91,railway Colony, Jagatpura, Jaipur. Connected With ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4538/2025 Nitin Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Ratanpura, Post Neemla, Rajgarh, District Alwar. At Present D-91,railway Colony, Jagatpura, Jaipur. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. Versus Victim

2. ----Petitioner ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek (respondent in CRLMP No.4538/2025) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Anupam Sharma (petitioner in CRLMP No.4536/2025) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 12/08/2025

1. In both the petitions, a joint prayer has been made to quash the proceedings arising out of FIR No.146/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, Jaipur (West) for offences under Sections 388, 504 IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ ST Act and proceedings arising out of FIR No.102/2024 [2025:RJ-JP:31389] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4536/2025] registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City (West) for offences under Sections 376, 384, 195-A and 120-B IPC.

2. When both petitions came up on board on 06.08.2025, following order was passed:- "1. agains complainant/ Jaipur Metropolitan I, From the record, it appears that one FIR No.102/2024 at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City (South), came to be lodged against one Nitin Kumar Meena for offences under Sections 376, 384, 195-A and 120-B IPC. 2. It has been submitted that after investigation in this FIR, negative final report was submitted on 04.09.2024 before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jaipur, whereagainst complainant/ vicitim has filed protest petition. 3. It further appears that one another FIR No.146/2024 was lodged by Nitin Kumar Meena at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, Jaipur (West), victim (respondent No.2 in SBCWP No.4538/2025), which was registered for offences under Sections 388, 504 IPC read with Sections 3(1) (r) and 3(1)(S) of the SC/ ST Act. In this FIR, after investigation, charge- 4. sheet has been filed and a Criminal Case No.37/2024 is pending at the stage of charge arguments before the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan II. It has inter alia been stated that Nitin 5. Kumar Meena and victim (respondent No.2 in SBCWP No.4538/2025), lodged cross FIRs, under misconception of correct facts and now both are willing to withdraw their allegations and seeking to quash their respective FIRs, alongwith all consequential proceedings. 6. Counsels, appearing for both parties i.e. Nitin Kumar Meena and victim (respondent No.2 in SBCWP No.4538/2025), submit that both are present in person before this Court and willing to depose their statements. 7. In such view of the matter, Nitin Kumar Meena and victim (respondent No.2 in SBCWP No.4538/2025), who lodged FIR No.102/2024 at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City (South), are directed to appear before the Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court Bench at Jaipur, today itself, who shall record their statements. [2025:RJ-JP:31389] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4536/2025] List these matters on 12th August 2025 in 8. supplementary list alongwith the report of Registrar (Judicial). "

3. Pursuant to the order dated 06.08.2025, victim-Bhawna Sharma and Nitin Kumar Meena have deposed their statements before the Registrar (Judicial). Their respective statements are available on record. As per their respective statements, both parties do not want to prosecute each other in their respective FIRs and in order to lead a peaceful and happy life and to maintain harmonious relations, have decided to quash criminal proceedings against each other.

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 crime-doer [2025:RJ-JP:31389] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4536/2025] 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.” 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.” [2025:RJ-JP:31389] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4536/2025]

4. This Court finds that allegation of rape have not been found proved in investigation and negative final report in FIR no. 102/2024 has been submitted. In FIR no. 146/2024, complainant has deposed not to press the allegations, in respect of offences under Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act. Thus, taking into status of parties and in order to maintain peace and harmony between parties, in the opinion of this Court, it is just and proper to drop the criminal proceedings in the present FIRs, in view of settlement arrived at between parties. The dispute otherwise seems to be private & personal, which has been set at rest. There is no endangerment to public at large by dropping the criminal proceedings, in view of settlement. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS deems it fit to quash the proceedings, arising out of the impugned FIRs.

5. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and FIR No. 146/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur City (South) and FIR No. 102/2024 registered at Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City (West), with all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.

6. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. RONAK JAIMAN/192&193 (SUDESH BANSAL),J