Abdul Rahim S/o Babu Khan, R/o Bhatta Basti, Jaipur. vs State of Rajasthan, and others through P.P.

Judgment

2. Mohd. Sameer S/o Fayad Khan, R/o Bhattabasti, Jaipur Salman Khan S/o Nasru Khan, R/o Bhattabasti, Jaipur Abdul Rahim S/o Babu Khan, R/o Bhatta Basti, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, and others through P.P. Nizamuddin S/o Imamuddin, Aged About 54 Years, R/o B- 100, Near By Jain Mandir, Neharu Nagar, Panipech Police Station Shastrinagar, Jaipur Rajasthan. Connected with ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5351/2025

1. Nizamuddin S/o Imamuddin, Aged About 53 Years, R/o B-100, Near By Jain Mandir, Neharu Nagar, Panipech Police Station Shastrinagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.

2. Naimuddin S/o Nizamuddin, Aged About 30 Years, R/o B-100, Near By Jain Mandir, Neharu Nagar, Panipech Police Station Shastrinagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.

3. Nasir Khan S/o Bundhu, Aged About 29 Years, R/o B-99, Near By Jain Mandir, Neharu Nagar, Panipech Police Station Shastrinagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.

4. Samsuddin S/o Imamuddin, Aged About 50 Years, R/o B-100, Near By Jain Mandir, Neharu Nagar, Panipech Police Station Shastrinagar, Jaipur Rajasthan. [2025:RJ-JP:35385] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-5347/2025]

5. Aamin Khan S/o Bindu Khan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o B-99, Near By Jain Mandir, Neharu Nagar, Panipech Police Station Shastrinagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.

6. Vahid Khan S/o Shamashuddin, Aged About 21 Years, R/ o B-100, Near By Jain Mandir, Neharu Nagar, Panipech Police Station Shastrinagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.

7. Sahanaz W/o Nizamuddin, Aged About 49 Years, R/o B- 100, Near By Jain Mandir, Neharu Nagar, Panipech Police Station Shastrinagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.

8. Taslim Bano D/o Nizamuddin, Aged About 26 Years, R/o B-100, Near By Jain Mandir, Neharu Nagar, Panipech Police Station Shastrinagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.

9. Tabassum Bano D/o Nizamuddin, Aged About 23 Years, R/o B-100, Near By Jain Mandir, Neharu Nagar, Panipech Police Station Shastrinagar, Jaipur Rajasthan Accused- Petitioner.

10. Aarif Alias S/o Bashir Mohammad, Aged About 36 Years, R/o B-100, Near By Jain Mandir, Neharu Nagar, Panipech Police Station Shastrinagar, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus

2. State of Rajasthan and Others, Through P.P. Farukh Khan S/o Mohammad Ibarahim Khan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 17, Sed Ka Bass, Police Station Shahapura, Jaipur Rural Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Deen Dayal Dhabas Mr. Vikash Ghosalya Mr. Pradeep Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Deen Dayal Dhabas HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 03/09/2025

1. A joint prayer has been made to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 616/2024: State Vs. Ibrahim Khan, pending [2025:RJ-JP:35385] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-5347/2025] before Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur arising out of FIR No. 384/2024 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur City (North) for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 333, 309(4), 229(1) and 61(2)(a) of BNS, 2023 and Criminal Case No. 617/2024: State Vs. Nizamuddin & Ors. pending before Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur arising out of FIR No. 350/2024 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur City (North) for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2) and 74 of BNS, 2023.

2. It has, inter alia, been submitted that both parties belong to same family and on some matrimonial dispute, quarrel ensued between them and both parties lodged cross FIRs against each other. After submission of charge-sheet in both FIRs and during course of criminal trial, both parties have mutually settled their differences and do not want to prosecute each other and are agreeable to drop the criminal proceedings, at this stage, itself.

3. It has been submitted that written compromise in both criminal cases was submitted before the trial Court to drop the criminal proceedings. The trial Court attested and verified the compromise in respect of offences under Sections 115(2) and 126(2) of BNS, 2023, however, for other offences, proceedings have not been dropped being non-compoundable offences. The certified copies of orders dated 19.06.2025 in both criminal cases passed by the trial Court have been placed on record.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows: [2025:RJ-JP:35385] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-5347/2025] “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 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.” [2025:RJ-JP:35385] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-5347/2025] 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].

5. 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.”

6. 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 dispute has been amicably settled between parties, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to allow present misc. petition.

7. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petitions are allowed and proceedings of Criminal Case Nos. 616/2024 and 617/2024, pending before Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur, are hereby dropped/ quashed.

8. Stay applications and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. NITIN /55 & 57 (SUDESH BANSAL),J