Ajmer. vs State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor.

: Mr. Ayush Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Anupam Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 11/09/2025

1. A joint prayer has been made to quash the FIR No. 170/2025 registered at Police Station Ramganj, District Ajmer for offences under Sections 308(5) and 140(2) of BNS, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties.

2. On the previous date of hearing i.e. on 20.08.2025, following order was passed:- “A prayer has been made to quash the FIR No. 170/2025 registered at Police Station Ramganj, District Ajmer for offences under Sections 308(5) and 140(2) BNS, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties. [2025:RJ-JP:37009] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-5166/2025] It has been informed that the original compromise has been placed in the file of bail application filed by petitioner No.1 being SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7758/2025, wherein on the basis of such compromise, the bail application came to be allowed, vide order dated 21.07.2025, and petitioner has been released on bail. Certified copy of compromise has been placed on record. Investigating Officer is directed to verify the factum of compromise, allegedly entered into between parties and shall send its report before this Court. List the matter on 11th September 2025.”

3. Public Prosecutor has placed on record a factual report of investigation dated 09.09.2025, wherein Investigating Officer has verified the factum of compromise, entered into between parties. The factual report dated 09.09.2025 is taken on record.

4. It is a case where respondent No.2-complainant lodged the impugned FIR against petitioners in respect of kidnapping of his son- respondent No.3 herein. Respondent No.3- Victim is a major person, who himself has deposed his affidavit that he was not kidnapped by petitioners. Respondent No.2-complainant has also filed an application, stating therein that the impugned FIR was lodged under some misunderstanding.

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. [2025:RJ-JP:37009] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-5166/2025]

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: “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:37009] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-5166/2025]

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. Vs. Radhika & Anr. [(2011) 10 SCC 705], allowed to quash criminal proceedings of case for offences under Sections 354 & 394 IPC by High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC, after parties settled the dispute mutually and made following observation in Para No.19:- “19. Coming to the case at hand, we are of the view that the incident in question had its genesis in a dispute relating to the access to the two plots which are adjacent to each other. It was not a case of broad daylight robbery for gain. It was a case which has its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute has, it appears, been resolved by them. That being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations which are now described by her as arising out of some “misunderstanding and misconception” will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. It is noteworthy that the two alleged eyewitnesses, who are closely related to the complainant, are also no longer supportive of the prosecution version. The continuance of the proceedings is thus nothing but an empty formality. Section 482 CrPC could, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts below.”

8. This Court is of the considered opinion that in order to maintain peace and harmony between parties, it is just and proper to drop the criminal proceedings in the present FIR, in view of settlement arrived at between parties. The legal proposition of law as set forth in the afore-referred judgments also permits to quash the proceedings in such nature of offences, which indeed do not affect public at large. Therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petition.

9. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and FIR No. 170/2025 registered at Police Station Ramganj, District Ajmer for offences under Sections 308(5) and [2025:RJ-JP:37009] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-5166/2025] 140(2) of BNS, with all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.

10. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sachin/11 (SUDESH BANSAL),J