Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Radha Saini Wife Of Sh. Ram Niwas Saini vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:13219) on 24 March, 2025
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2025:RJ-JP:13219]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 736/2025
Radha Saini Wife of Sh. Ram Niwas Saini, Resident of House No.
21, Saket Colony, Gangwa Road, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar,
Haryana.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Raju S/o Shivlal Saini, Aged About 39 Years, Resident of
Mannaka Road, Shastri Nagar, Alwar Tehsil And Distt.
Alwar.
3. Rajkumar Saini S/o Sohan Lal Saini, Aged About 46
Years, Near Scheme No. 06, Kabir Colony, Alwar,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 3377/2020
Ranvir Singh Saini S/o Sh. Ramji Lal Saini, Aged About 70 Years,
R/o House No. 9, Partap Nagar, Gangwa Road, Hisar, Tehsil And
Dist. Hisar, Haryana.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Raju S/o Shivlal Saini, R/o Mannaka Road, Shastri Nagar,
Alwar, Tehsil And Distt. Alwar.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Abhinav Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with
Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG
Mr. Mohit Tantia for complainant
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
24/03/2025
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 11:42:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13219] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-736/2025]
1. These criminal misc. petitions have been filed by the
petitioners under Section 528 BNSS with a prayer to quash the
charge-sheet dated 18.07.2019 bearing No.444/2019 and also the
FIR No. 345/2001, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District
Alwar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 & 120B
of IPC qua the present petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that a
compromise has arrived at between the parties and they have
amicably settled their dispute, therefore the impugned charge-
sheet and the impugned FIR alongwith all consequential
proceedings against the present petitioners be quashed and set
aside.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments and
the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant acknowledges the
factum of the compromise arrived at between the parties and on
instructions from the complainants, states that the complainants
have no objection if the impugned charge-sheet and the FIR in
question alongwith all consequential proceedings against the
present accused-petitioners are quashed and set aside.
5. Considered the submissions made at bar and perused the
material available on record.
6. A bare perusal of the material on record shows that the
dispute between the parties has amicably been settled by them.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State
of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 has observed as under:-
“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(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 11:42:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13219] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-736/2025]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 the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the fact that the
dispute between the offender and the victim has
been settled although the 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 wrongdoing that seriously endangers and
threatens the well-being of the 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 the permission of the court. In respect of
serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or
other offences of mental depravity under IPC or
offences of moral turpitude under special statutes,
like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, the settlement between the offender and
the 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 the victim and the offender and the
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(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 11:42:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13219] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-736/2025]or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such
settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the
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.”
8. The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.M.C.
No.1741/2021 (Sunil Tomar Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi &
Anr.) decided on 12.04.2022, has observed as under:-
“Partial quashing or part quashing of FIR only
qua the petitioner/accused with whom the
complainant has compromised or settled the
matter can be allowed and while quashing, it
must be appreciated that the petitioner/accused
cannot be allowed to suffer based on a
complaint filed by the respondent, when
subsequently, all disputes have been settled
between the parties. Relinace can be placed on
Poonam Khanna vs. State & Ors in Crl.M.C.
No.3690/2016 Dated 30.01.2018.”
9. In view of the fact of compromise arrived at between the
parties, it would be a futile exercise to continue the criminal
proceedings because ultimately now there are bleak chances of
conviction in the matter.
10. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the charge-sheet dated
18.07.2019 bearing No.444/2019 and the FIR No. 345/2001,
registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Alwar for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 406 & 120B of IPC and all
consequential proceedings are required to be quashed and set
aside in the interest of justice and so also to relieve the trial
Courts from excessive workload by putting an end to the
proceedings of cases where it is felt that because of compromise
between the parties now there are bleak chances of conviction.
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 11:42:43 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:13219] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-736/2025]
11. Accordingly, these misc. petitions are allowed. The criminal
proceedings of charge-sheet dated 18.07.2019 bearing
No.444/2019 and also the FIR No. 345/2001, registered at Police
Station Kotwali, District Alwar for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 406 & 120B of IPC are quashed and set aside qua
the present petitioners.
12. Since the main petitions, are allowed, the stay application
and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.
13. It is made clear that this order passed on the basis of
compromise, shall not in any manner affect any kind of other
proceedings.
14. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in the
connected case file.
(GANESH RAM MEENA), J
DIVYA SAINI /91-92
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 11:42:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)