Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Roop Singh @ Rupo S/O Gheesa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:8880) on 28 February, 2025
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2025:RJ-JP:8880]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 1195/2025
1. Roop Singh @ Rupo S/o Gheesa Ram, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Mai, P.s Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Lalit S/o Gheesa Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Mai, P.s
Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
3. Vijay S/o Gheesa Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Mai, P.s
Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
4. Jyoti W/o Vijay Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Mai P.s
Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
5. Poonam W/o Roopsingh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Mai P.s
Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
6. Sabo W/o Gheesaram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Mai P.s
Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Baldev Wati W/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Mai, P.s Lakhanpur, Distict Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP
Mr. Sumit Sharma for
Ms. Pooja Dixit for complainant
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
28/02/2025
1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the
petitioners under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for quashing and
setting aside the FIR No.177/2024 (dated 24.07.2024) registered
at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur for the offences
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 11:54:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:8880] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-1195/2025]
punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 76, 303(2) &
351(2) of BNS.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned
counsel appearing for the complainant submit that a compromise
has arrived at between the parties and they have amicably settled
their dispute, therefore, FIR No.177/2024 (dated 24.07.2024)
registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur, 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 complainant, states that the complainant has
no objection if the impugned 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 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(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 11:54:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:8880] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-1195/2025]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(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 11:54:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:8880] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-1195/2025]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 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 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs.
State of Punjab (2014 AIR SCW 2065) has observed as
under:-
“21. However, we have some other cases decided by
this Court commenting upon the nature of offence
under Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case
AIR 2013 SC 518) (supra), FIR was lodged under
sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 552 and 506 of
the IPC. The matter was investigated and final
report was presented to the Court under Section 173
of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the
charges. At that stage, settlement was arrived at
between parties. The court accepted the settlement
and quashed the proceedings, replying upon the
earlier judgment of this Court in Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab and Anr., 2012 AIR SCW 5333, wherein
the court had observed that inherent powers under
section 482 of the Code are of wide plenitude (sic)
with no statutory limitation and the guiding factors
are: (1) to secure the needs of justice, or (2) to
prevent abuse of process of the court. While doing
so, commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR,
the court observed:
“Since the offences involved in this case are of a
personal nature and are not offences against the
society, we had enquired with learned counsel
appearing for the parties whether there is any(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 11:54:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:8880] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-1195/2025]possibility of a settlement. We are happy to note
that due to efforts made by learned counsel, parties
have seen reason and have entered into a
compromise.”
This Court, thus, treated such offences including one
under section 307, IPC were of a personal nature
and not offences against the society.”
9. 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.”
10. 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.
11. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the FIR No.177/2024
(dated 24.07.2024) registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District
Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2),
115(2), 126(2), 76, 303(2) & 351(2) of BNS and all consequential
proceedings are required to be quashed ans 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 14/03/2025 at 11:54:12 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:8880] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-1195/2025]
12. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed.
FIR No.177/2024 (dated 24.07.2024) registered at Police Station
Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under
Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 76, 303(2) & 351(2) of BNS and
all consequential proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.
13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
DIVYA SAINI /15
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 11:54:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
