Allowed¶21

Shekhar Agarwal Son of Shri Ramdas Agarwal, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Mar 2026CRLMP/3666/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR No. 11/2021 (Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG, Jaipur) under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B IPC on the basis of compromise between accused-petitioners Shekhar Agarwal and Jatin Agarwal and complainant Matadeen Soni; complainant did not wish to prosecute; dispute personal in nature; principles of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 applied; CRLMP-3666/2021; Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand; petition allowed, stay and pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of the proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No. 11/2021 (Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG) qua the petitioners; stay application and all pending applications disposed of. ¶21

Shekhar Agarwal Son of Shri Ramdas Agarwal, Vs State… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No. 11/2021 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG for offences under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B IPC can be quashed qua the petitioners on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶15

Court's answer

Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, the complainant does not wish to prosecute the petitioners, and the dispute pertains to personal in nature, the Court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. No. 11/2021 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG qua the petitioners stand quashed and set aside.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3666/2021, decided 10/03/2026 by Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.: F.I.R. No. 11/2021 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG for offences under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B IPC was quashed and set aside qua accused-petitioners Shekhar Agarwal and Jatin Agarwal on the basis of a compromise arrived at with complainant Matadeen Soni during pendency of the investigation, the complainant having declined to prosecute and the dispute being personal in nature; the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303 and The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, 2019 (5) SCC 688 were applied; the criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed and the stay application along with all pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3666/2021

¶3

Shekhar Agarwal S/o Shri Ramdas Agarwal, aged about 38 Years, R/o House No. B-5 Rammarg Shyam Nagar, Sodala , Jaipur (Raj).

¶4

Jatin Agarwal S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, aged about 21 Years, R/o B-7 Hardev Colony, Kalyan Nagar, Tonk Road, Thana Sanganer Jaipur (Raj).

¶5

----Accused/Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Matadeen Soni S/o Shri Satyanarain Matadeen Soni, aged about 57 Years, R/o 1253 Kho Walon Ka Chowk, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Jhori Bajar Jaipur (Raj).

¶10

----Complainant/Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.NeerajSharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP
	Ms.Manju Dave, PP
	Ms.Diksha Meena for
	Mr.Sumit Kumar Jain

¶12

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

10/03/2026

¶15

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the F.I.R. No.11/2021 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG) District ATS & SOG, for the offences under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B IPC on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶16

At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent submitted that during pendency of the investigation, the complainant-respondent has entered into

¶17

[CRLMP-3666/2021]

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

compromise with the petitioners whereby the complainantrespondent does not wish to prosecute the petitioners.

¶20

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶21

Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and looking to the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and now, the complainant does not wish to prosecute the petitioners and the dispute pertains to personal in nature, and applying the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan reported in 2019 (5) SCC 688 , the proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. No.11/2021 registered at Police Station Special Police Station (SOG), District ATS & SOG qua the petitioners, stand quashed and set-aside. 5. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stand allowed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶22

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶23

Aayush Sharma /11

Shekhar Agarwal Son of Shri Ramdas Agarwal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shekhar Agarwal Son of Shri Ramdas Agarwal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teel Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kalu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Sharma, S/O Late Mr. Babulal Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghamandi Singh Son of Late Shri Chakrapaan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Teena Badya W/O Shri Chandra Mohan Badaya Vs State of Rajasthan

Salma Akhtar W/O Akhtar Husain Vs State of Rajasthan