P.s. Samaspur, District Baran, Rajasthan. vs State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

Judgment

2. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. Girdhar Gurjar, S/o Rameshwar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o P.s. Samaspur, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5000/2025

1. Girdhar Gurjar, S/o Rameshwar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o P.s. Samaspur, District Baran, Rajasthan.

2. Pawan Gurjar, S/o Rameshwar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o P.s. Samaspur, District Baran, Rajasthan.

3. Golu S/o Rameshwar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o P.s. Samaspur, District Baran, Rajasthan.

4. Mukesh S/o Rameshwar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o P.s. Samaspur, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

Akash, S/o Shri Harishankar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o P.s. Samaspur, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:31536] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4955/2025] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Dadhich (respondent in SBCRLMP No.5000/2025) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma (petitioner in SBCRLMP No.4955/2025) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 13/08/2025 1. A joint prayer has been made to quash both the FIR No. 712/2024, registered for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 110 & 3(5) of BNS and FIR No. 717/2024 registered for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 333, 3(5) & 303(2) of BNS at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran, in view of settlement arrived at between the parties.

2. It has inter alia been stated that both parties belong to one family and some family quarrel/scuffle entered into between the parties, due to the dispute of agricultural land, however, with the indulgence of other family members and friends, the family brawl has been resolved and both parties do not want to continue the criminal prosecution in their respective FIRs against each other.

3. It has been stated that FIR No.712/2024 is at the stage of investigation and in FIR No.717/2024, after investigation charge- sheet has been filed. Injuries are not grievous and dangerous to life in nature and the dispute is fundamentally private and personal between the parties. It has been urged that since now the parties have settled their inter se dispute, it is just and proper to close the proceedings in both the FIRs and to quash the impugned FIR.

4. Both parties are present in person. Original compromise dated

26.07.2025 has been placed on record. [2025:RJ-JP:31536] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4955/2025]

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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:31536] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4955/2025] 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 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.

8. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and impugned FIR Nos. 712/2024 & 717/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran, with all consequential proceedings, qua petitioners, are hereby quashed and set aside.

9. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. RONAK JAIMAN/198-S&62 (SUDESH BANSAL),J