State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p v. Surendra Choudhary S/o

Raju Ram S/o Shri Hardeen Jat, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Gram Panva, Post Marva, Tehsil Dudu, Ps Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Ramratan Chaudhary S/o Madan Lal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Gram Panva, Post Marva, Tehsil Dudu, Ps Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Prakash S/o Pokharmal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Gram Panva, Post Marva, Tehsil Dudu, Ps Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Manju Devi W/o Pokharmal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Gram Panva, Post Marva, Tehsil Dudu, Ps Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Goura W/o Vikram Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Gram Panva, Post Marva, Tehsil Dudu, Ps Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Maagni Devi W/o Gopal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Gram Panva, Post Marva, Tehsil Dudu, Ps Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

10. Vikram S/o Laxman Mal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Gram Panva, Post Marva, Tehsil Dudu, Ps Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Versus Surendra Choudhary S/o Shri Nandaram Jat, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Panva Kalan, Post Marva, Tehsil Dudu, Ps Narena, District Jaipur (Raj.). Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4985/2025 ----Respondents

1. Surendra Choudhary S/o Nandaram Jat, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Panwa, Post Marwa, Tehsil Dudu, Police Station Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Ghasi Jat S/o Ramlal, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of [2025:RJ-JP:33669] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4983/2025]

2. Panwa, Post Marwa, Tehsil Dudu, Police Station Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Bhagchand Jat S/o Ramlal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Panwa, Post Marwa, Tehsil Dudu, Police Station Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Sarveshwar Jat S/o Ghasilal, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Panwa, Post Marwa, Tehsil Dudu, Police Station Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Mrs. Bhanwari Devi(Bhuri) Jat W/o Ghasiram, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of Panwa, Post Marwa, Tehsil Dudu, Police Station Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Mrs. Supyar Jat W/o Nandaram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Panwa, Post Marwa, Tehsil Dudu, Police Station Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). Mrs. Sita Jat W/o Surendra Jat, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Panwa, Post Marwa, Tehsil Dudu, Police Station Narena, District Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Versus Hardeen S/o Shri Ranglal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Panva Kalan, Post Marwa, Tehsil Dudu, P.s. Narena, District Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raja Ram Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Kamlesh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 25/08/2025

1. A joint prayer has been made to quash FIR No.11/2025 for offences under Sections 189(2), 126(2), 115(2) of BNS and FIR No.12/2025 for offences under Sections 189(2), 126(2), 115(2) of BNS, registered at Police Station Narena, District Jaipur (Rural) alongwith all consequential proceedings, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties. [2025:RJ-JP:33669] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4983/2025]

2. It has been contended that both parties are relatives & neighbors and on account of some dispute in respect of dumping soil, some minor scuffle has entered into, wherein no serious injuries occurred, however, during course of investigation Police added offence under Section 110 BNS.

3. It has further been contended that during course of scuffle, no injury, dangerous to life, occurred to either side and even accused persons received some injuries.

4. It has been contended that both parties have mutually sorted-out their dispute and in order to maintain their harmonious relations and peace in life, they do not want to proceed further proceedings in both FIRs. Both parties admit that allegations in the FIRs were made under spur of moment because of misunderstanding of the correct and true facts. In such view, it has been prayed that the impugned FIRs may be quashed alongwith the investigation carried out thereof. An original compromise dated 31.07.2025, allegedly executed between parties, has been placed on record.

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 [2025:RJ-JP:33669] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4983/2025] 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.” 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: [2025:RJ-JP:33669] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4983/2025] “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 seems to be private in nature between parties as much as has been amicably settled and acceptance of compromise does not affect the public at large, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petitions.

8. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and FIRs No.11/2025 and 12/2025, registered at Police Station Narena, District Jaipur, with all consequential proceedings qua petitioners, are hereby quashed and set aside.

9. Stay applications and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sachin/16 & 17 (SUDESH BANSAL),J