Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ranvir Singh Saini S/O Sh. Ramji Lal ... 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 11:42:42 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 11:42:42 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 11:42:42 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 11:42:42 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 11:42:42 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)