HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No v. 1. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Victim, R/o

Judgment

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Victim, R/o ----Petitioner ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner present in person For Respondent(s)

: Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Respondent No.2 present in person. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 12/09/2025

1. Petitioner and respondent No.2-complainant are present in person and states that both have entered into marriage on

01.09.2025 and in that view, have prayed to quash FIR No. 168/2025, registered at Police Station Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur, for offences under Sections 69 & 351(2) of BNS,

2. It has been stated that both belong to same community and they had already entered into engagement, but later on, due to misunderstanding, respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR, but thereafter, respondent No.2 has entered into marriage with petitioner on 01.09.2025 and is living with him as his legally wedded wife, although it has been stated in compromise deed dated 26.08.2025 that both of them would enter into marriage between November, 2025 and June, 2026. A written compromise [2025:RJ-JP:37184] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5685/2025] allegedly executed between both the parties as also certificate of registration of marriage dated 03.09.2025 have been placed on record.

3. The statement of respondent No.2 be recorded before the Registrar (Judicial), Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

4. The statements deposed by the respondent no.2 has been placed on record wherein it has been stated that since both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, hence, in such circumstances, the impugned FIR may be quashed, so that both parties may live and lead their happy married life together.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows: “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.”

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kapil Gupta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [MANU/SC/1012/2022], quashed criminal proceedings for offence under Section 376 of IPC in the peculiar facts & circumstances of that case, where the complainant/prosecutrix settled her dispute with the accused- appellant and was not desirous to pursue proceedings against [2025:RJ-JP:37184] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5685/2025] appellant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if complainant/prosecutrix is made to face the criminal trial, she would face the agony of undergoing the trial rather getting any relief. In an another case of Jatin Agarwal Vs. State of Telangana in Criminal Appeal No.456/2022, decided on 21st March, 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the FIR for offences under Sections 417, 420 and 376 of IPC, in view of the fact that after registration of FIR, both parties sorted out their mutual dispute and have agreed to enter into marriage, soon after grant of divorce decree, in favour of non-petitioner No.2. Thus, in exceptional circumstances, FIR/proceedings of criminal case for offence under Section 376 IPC may also be allowed to be quashed, in exercise of inherent powers by the High Court or in extraordinary powers of Supreme Court and there is no absolute fetter, not to quash the criminal proceedings of such nature of offence in exercise of inherent powers.

7. Different Coordinate Benches of this High Court, have exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR/criminal proceedings for offence under Section 376 of IPC after considering facts and circumstances of that case. Reference of the case of Mubin Khan Vs State of Rajasthan in SB Criminal Appeal No.1302/2020 decided vide order dated 7th September, 2020; Hardik Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan in SB Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.6271/2019 decided vide order dated 17.02.2020 and Raju Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.410/2021 decided vide order dated 17.02.2021, would be suffice. In these cases, on the basis of settlement arrived at [2025:RJ-JP:37184] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5685/2025] between parties, the FIR registered for similar nature of offence under Section 376 was allowed to be quashed.

8. In such backdrop of facts, the continuation of prosecution’s case in the impugned FIR, where the complainant herself is not ready to pursue the same, the criminal trial would be a futile exercise and that will serve no purpose. Thus, allowing the continuance of criminal proceedings is nothing, but would be an empty formality and may be held as wasteful exercise by the trial Court, for no fruitful purpose. In such circumstances, this Court finds that it would be justifiable to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS to quash the impugned FIR/criminal proceedings in pursuance thereof, to prevent abuse of the process of law.

9. In view of afore-discussed factual matrix of the present case and in the light of judgments of the Apex Court and Coordinate Benches of the Rajasthan High Court as also of other High Courts as referred hereinabove, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the present miscellaneous petition, in order to prevent abuse of process of the law.

10. As a final result, present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and FIR No. 168/2025, registered at Police Station Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur, with all consequential proceedings, is hereby quashed and set aside.

11. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. pcg/50 (SUDESH BANSAL),J