State Of Rajasthan, Through PP vs Years, R/o Village Kolada, Genda Ki Jhopadi, Bonli,

Ravi Singh Chouhan Son Of Shri Gopal Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Kherla Khurd, District Dausa, Currently Posted At Police Station Malarna Doongar, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. Ramkesh Gurjar Son Of Shri Mool Chand Gurjar, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Village Gojari, Bhookha District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. Ram Krishan Gurjar Son Of Shri Ramvilas, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Gojyari, Bhookha District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners State Of Rajasthan, Through PP Versus Paylet Gurjar S/o Shri Bhanwer Lal Gurjar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Kolada, Genda Ki Jhopadi, Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur,rajasthan. Dharmraj Gurjar S/o Shri Kanwar Pal Gurjar, R/o Village Kolada, Genda Ki Jhopadi, Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur,rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Petitioners in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Respondents No.2 & 3- Complainant & Victim, in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 12/09/2025

1. Petitioners, respondent No.2-complainant and respondent No.3- Victim, are present in person and have jointly prayed to quash the FIR No. 194/2025 registered at Police Station Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur for offences under Sections [2025:RJ-JP:37174] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5248/2025] 115(2), 126(2), 127(2) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023, on the basis of compromise arrived at between them.

2. It has been stated that daughter of petitioner No.3- Ramkesh Gurjar eloped with a boy, belonging to Village Kolada, Genda Ki Jhopadi, Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur and in that connection, petitioners No.1 and 2, being Head Constable & Constable, brought respondent No.2 & 3 to the Police Station, since they belonged to Village Kolada and on that issue, respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR, levelling allegation against petitioners that they abused and beat them up in the Police Station.

3. It has been stated that later on, respondent No.2 & 3 have deposed a joint affidavit dated 18.08.2025, stating therein that the impugned FIR was lodged under some misconception and pressure of the society. Indeed, petitioners neither misbehaved nor beat them up in the Police Station and therefore, they do not want to continue any proceedings in the impugned FIR against petitioners and are agreeable to quash the same.

4. Respondent Nos.2 & 3, who are present in person, are directed to appear before the Registrar (Judicial) today itself, who shall record their statements and verify their joint affidavit dated

18.08.2025, and send the report before this Court.

5. The statements of respondent Nos.2 & 3 have been recorded and affidavit dated 18.08.2025 has been verified by the Registrar (Judicial) and the report has also been placed on record.

6. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:37174] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5248/2025] 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 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]. [2025:RJ-JP:37174] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5248/2025]

7. 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.”

8. In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, and considering the nature of offences and the fact that the underlying dispute has been amicably settled between parties and complainant & victim do not want to prosecute the petitioners further, 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 the FIR No. 194/2025 registered at Police Station Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur, alongwith all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed.

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