State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p v. Satish Gupta S/o

Judgment

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Versus Satish Gupta S/o Shri Laxmichand Gupta, R/o New Civil Lines Baran Rotwali, Baran. Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6810/2022 ----Respondents Ashutosh Bhardwaj S/o Shri Surya Narayan Bhardwaj, Aged About 54 Years, R/o House No. 10, Sector No. 4, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Versus

Sandeep Sharma S/o Shri Shuddhodhan Sharma, R/o Old Civil Lines, Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan. Kamal Rathore S/o Shri Dhanna Lal, R/o Satsang Bhawan Road, Baran. Tejesh Suman S/o Shri Mohanlal Suman, R/o Lanka Colony, Near Madhuvan Resorts, Baran. Umesh Nagar S/o Shri Shiv Narayan Nagar, R/o Pushpkunj, Sunderji Ki Bagichi, Baran. Pradeep Dalmia S/o Shri Om Prakash, R/o Old Civil Lines, Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8151/2024 Sandeep Sharma S/o Shri Shuddhodhan Sharma, R/o Old Civil Lines, Baran District Rajasthan. Kamal Rathore S/o Shri Dhannalal, R/o Satsang Bhawan Road, Baran. Tejesh Suman S/o Shri Mohanlal Suman, R/o Lanka Colony Near Madhuvan Resorts, Baran. Umesh Nagar S/o Shri Shiv Narayan Nagar, R/o Puhp Kunj, Sunderju Ki Bagichi, Baran. Pradeep Dalmia S/o Shri Om Prakash, R/o Old Civil Lines, Baran District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Versus The Superintendent Of Police, Kotwali Baran District Baran

2. [2025:RJ-JP:38933] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-6778/2022] (Raj).

4. Sho/investigation Officer, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran (Raj). Ashutosh Bhardwaj S/o Shri Surya Narayan Bhardwaj, R/o House No. 10, Sector No. 4, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2362/2025

2. Anshu Bhardwaj W/o Shri. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Aged About 56 Years, R/o House No. 10, Sector 4, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Ashutosh Bhardwaj S/o Late Shri Surya Narayan Bhardwaj, Aged About 57 Years, R/o House No. 10, Sector 4, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Versus ----Petitioners State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. Mr. Tejesh Suman S/o Shri Mohanlal Suman, R/o New Civil Line, Kota Road, Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta & Mr. Naman Yadav for respondents in Crl.MP No.8151/2024 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. K.I Khan for petitioner in Crl.MP No.8151/2024 Mr. Avtar Singh Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 20/09/2025

1. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6778/2022 has been filed, seeking to quash FIR No.108/2022 registered for offences u/s. 420 & 406 IPC, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6810/2022 has been filed, seeking to quash FIR No.685/2021 registered for offences u/s. 420, 406, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2362/ 2025 has been filed seeking to quash FIR No.608/2024 registered for offences u/s. [2025:RJ-JP:38933] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-6778/2022] 420, 406 & 120B IPC, and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8151/2024 has been filed by petitioners-complainant, seeking fair, timely and impartial investigation in FIR No.685/2021.

2. Since in all three impugned FIRs, parties are common and issue is also common, hence, with consent of counsel for both parties, all petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common Order.

3. It has inter alia been stated that all three FIRs were registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran in respect of non-performance of the contract to establish a solar system and siphoning off the amount of aggrieved persons by the accused persons. The dispute has been stated to be private and personal in nature between parties, which has been resolved by way of a mutual settlement.

4. It has been stated that parties had appeared before the trial Court and submitted the compromise. The trial Court attested the compromise and while discharging the petitioner from the offences u/s. 420 & 406 IPC, dropped the proceedings of Criminal Case No.399/2023: State Vs. Ashutosh, arising out of FIR No.108/2022, vide order dated 30.08.2025, wherein signatures of all parties, duly verified by their respective advocates, are available. Certified copy of order dated 30.08.2025 has been placed on, which is taken on record in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6810/2022.

5. In such view of the matter, since the proceedings of criminal case arising out of FIR No.108/2022, have already been dropped by the trial Court itself vide order dated 30.08.2025, counsel for petitioner does not want to press S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous [2025:RJ-JP:38933] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-6778/2022] (Petition) No. 6778/2022 and seeks permission to withdraw the same.

6. Accordingly, the S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6778/2022 is hereby dismissed as not press.

7. In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6810/2022, a separate deed of settlement dated 24.04.2025, duly signed by the aggrieved persons, has been placed on record, which is taken on record.

8. In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.2362/2025, respondent No.2- complainant/ aggrieved person, namely, Sh. Tejesh Suman is present in person, who is duly identified by his counsel and has verified the factum of compromise allegedly entered into between him and accused persons.

9. A joint prayer has been made to quash FIR Nos. 685/2021 & 608/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran, in view of compromise arrived at between parties.

10. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:38933] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-6778/2022] 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].

11. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:38933] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-6778/2022] 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.”

12. In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, and considering the nature of offence and the dispute which is personal & private in nature between parties as much as has been amicably settled, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to quash FIR Nos. 685/2021 & 608/2024.

13. Accordingly, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos. 6810/2022 & 2362/2025 are allowed and FIR Nos. 685/2021 & 608/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran, with all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.

14. Since FIR No.685/2021, alongwith all consequential proceedings, has already been quashed, therefore, counsel for petitioner does not want to press S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8151/2024, filed by petitioners-complainants, for fair, timely and impartial investigation in FIR No.685/2021.

15. In view of above, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8151/2024 is dismissed as not press.

16. Stay applications and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sachin/95, 96-97 & 108 (SUDESH BANSAL),J