Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) v. Kanchan Devi Wife Of

Sanjay Kumar Son Of Shri Hanuman Prasad, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Jagdish Son Of Shri Manguram, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Hajari Son Of Shri Manguram, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Vidhya Wife Of Shri Jagdish, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Mithlesh Wife Of Shri Sanjay Kumar, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Tara Chand Son Of Shri Hanuman, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Manju Wife Of Shri Tara Chand, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Sonam Devi Wife Of Shri Krishan Kumar, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Pinki Wife Of Shri Sonu, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Hanumaan Son Of Shri Manguram, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Krishan Baberwal Son Of Shri Jagdish Prasad Balai, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioners State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Versus Kanchan Devi Wife Of Shri Dinesh Kumar, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5178/2025 ----Respondents

1. Dinesh Kumar Son Of Shri Gokul Chand, Resident Of [2025:RJ-JP:39601] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-5968/2025]

9. Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Maan Singh Son Of Shri Gokul Chand, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Leela Ram Son Of Shri Gokul Chand, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Mukesh Baberwal Son Of Shri Gokul Chand, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Dushyant Son Of Shri Dinesh Kumar, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Divyanshi Daughter Of Shri Dinesh Kumar, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Kanchan Wife Of Shri Dinesh Kumar, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Sanjana Devi Wife Of Shri Maan Singh, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Kamli Devi Wife Of Shri Gokul Chand, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)

10. Arun Kumar Son Of Shri Dinesh Kumar, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioners

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Versus Krishan Baberwal Son Of Shri Jagdish Prasad Balai, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) Sanjay Kumar Son Of Shri Hanuman Prasad, Resident Of Village Kachreda, Patan, Police Station Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Basant Singh Rathore for NP Nos. 2 & 3 in Crl.MP No.5178/2025 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Balkishan Saini for petitioners in Crl.MP No.5178/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:39601] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-5968/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 25/09/2025

1. A joint prayer has been made to quash FIR No.71/2025 for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352, 74 & 189(2) of BNS, 2023 and FIR No.70/2025 for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) & 189(2) of BNS, 2023, registered at Police Station Patan (Sikar), District Sikar alongwith all consequential proceedings, on the basis of compromise arrived at between parties.

2. The original compromise dated 20.08.2025, entered into between parties, has been filed in SB Crl.MP No.5178/2025 and a certified copy of compromise 18.06.2025, has been filed in SB Crl.MP No.5968/2025.

3. It has inter alia been stated that both parties belong to same family and on account some minor quarrel/ scuffle in respect of a dispute over drainage, parties lodged cross FIRs against each other. In the scuffle, a head injury occurred to injured- Sanjay.

4. In the compromise, injured- Sanjay stated that his head injury was not attributed to anyone, but has occurred due to falling on the stone. Another victim- Kanchan Devi has also deposed that her modesty was not outraged and the FIR came to be lodged under some misconception of correct facts.

5. It has further been stated that prima facie no case for offence u/s. 109(2) of BNS, 2023 has been made out.

6. It has jointly been prayed that since parties have mutually settled their dispute and complainants & victims, who are present in person and duly identified by their respective counsels, do want [2025:RJ-JP:39601] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-5968/2025] to pursue their respective FIRs, both the FIRs, alongwith all consequential proceedings thereof, may be quashed.

7. 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, 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. dacoity, rape, etc; [2025:RJ-JP:39601] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-5968/2025] 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].

8. Following the analogy expounded by the Apex Court in case of Gian Singh (Supra), while dealing with the issue to allow settlement for offence under Section 307 IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra Singh Vs. State of Punjab: [(2014)6 SCC 466] observed that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may not be refused merely on a ground that the FIR/ Charge-sheet incorporate the offence under Section 307 IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered observations made in case of Dimpey Gujral V. UT:[(2013)11 SCC 497] accepting the settlement between parties for offence under Section 307 IPC and observed as under:- “Having said so, we would hasen to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/ victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/ charge-sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under Section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely, whether injuries are caused at the vital/ delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used, etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties. On the [2025:RJ-JP:39601] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-5968/2025] other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessarily included in the charge-sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties.”

9. 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.”

10. 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. petitions. [2025:RJ-JP:39601] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-5968/2025]

11. As a final result, both criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and FIR Nos.71/2025 & 70/2025 registered at Police Station Patan (Sikar), District Sikar, with all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.

12. Stay applications and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sachin/S-177 & 4 (SUDESH BANSAL),J