Petitioners sought quashing of an Alwar FIR for cheating and related offences on the basis of a compromise with the complainant, who raised no objection. Relying on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the court held continued proceedings would be futile given bleak chances of conviction and quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:6618]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7273/2024
----Petitioners
Versus
.......Respondent
----Complainant-Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Ms. |
Swati Sharma on behalf of |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. | Girish Khandelwal | |
| For Complainant(s) | : Mr. |
Khizer Iqbal Khan |
| For State | : Mr. |
Vijay Singh Yadav, PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
14/02/2025
[2025:RJ-JP:6618]
[CRLMP-7273/2024]
(2 of 5)
amicably settled their dispute, therefore, the FIR No.273/2023 (dated 11.07.2023) registered at Police Station Laxmangarh (Alwar), District Alwar, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 342, 323, 389 & 143 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising out the impugned FIR, be quashed and set aside qua the present petitioners.
“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
(3 of 5)
[2025:RJ-JP:6618]
[CRLMP-7273/2024]
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.
(4 of 5)
[2025:RJ-JP:6618]
[CRLMP-7273/2024]
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.”
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 possibility of a settlement. We are happy to note that due to efforts made by learned counsel, parties
(5 of 5) [CRLMP-7273/2024]
[2025:RJ-JP:6618]
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."
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
ARTI SHARMA /53
1 issue framed by the court
Should FIR No.273/2023 under Sections 419, 420, 342, 323, 389 and 143 IPC be quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of the compromise between the parties?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶7
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Narinder Singh Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶8
(2014 AIR SCW 2065) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jaikam Khan
Sadda Bano
Sahabuddin
State of Rajasthan
Tejendra Kumar Sharma
Ganesh Ram Meena
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
