Brijesh Son of Godu Ram, Vs State of Rajasthan

This petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the FIR No. 320/2025 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur City (South) for the offence under Setion 309(4) BNS and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom.

¶17

Accused petitioner no.2 Sanjay Kanjar and petitioner no.3 Vijay Kumar Teli as well as the complainant respondent no.2

¶18

[2026:RJ-JP:6002]

¶19

[CRLMP-925/2026]

¶20

(2 of 5)

¶21

Dinesh Kumar Saini have appeared in person today before this Court, their signature have been obtained on the order sheet and they have been identified by their respective counsel.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accused petitioner no. 1 Brijesh S/o Godu Ram is in judicial custody, therefore, he is not present in person today before this Court.

¶23

He further submits that the parties do not have any animosity against each other and there was no pre-meditated fight but on account of some sudden altercations, impugned FIR came to be lodged against petitioners. He further submits that thereafter the parties have entered into a compromise and buried their hatchet in order to maintain peace and harmony in their life and to maintain cordial relations between them. The compromise duly signed by the parties and notarized by the Notary Public has been placed on record. Thus, he has prayed to quash the FIR No. 320/2025 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur City (South) and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners, on the basis of compromise.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 concurs with the factum of compromise. He further submits that the complainant/victim do not want to prosecute the petitioners further in the matter. He has shown no objection in case FIR No. 320/2025 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur City (South) and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners, are quashed and set-aside on the basis of compromise.

[2026:RJ-JP:6002]

[CRLMP-925/2026]

(3 of 5)

Further, it has been jointly submitted that in view of the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between parties, the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and the continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners would be abuse of process of law, therefore, to secure ends of justice, FIR No. 320/2025 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur City (South) and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners, be quashed and set-aside, in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

¶29

Learned Dy. GA has submitted the offence under Section 309(4) BNS is not compoundable.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record.

¶31

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] observed as follows:

¶32

“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 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.”

[2026:RJ-JP:6002]

[CRLMP-925/2026]

(4 of 5)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramgopal Vs.

¶37

The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [2022 (14) SCC

¶38

531 observed as follows:-

¶39

“12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non compoundable.”

¶40

In view of legal proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases and considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and since both parties have amicably settled their dispute, the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and the respondent no.2 has no objection if FIR No. 320/2025 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur City (South) and subsequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom, qua petitioners, are quashed, this Court deems it just and proper to prevent the abuse of process of law by quashing the FIR No. 320/2025 and criminal proceedings arising therefrom as a whole, qua petitioners, and to allow the present misc. petition.

¶41

As a result, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and FIR No. 320/2025 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur City (South) and subsequent criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR, qua petitioners, as a whole are hereby quashed and set-aside.

¶42

All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 14. Since the parties have been entered into the compromise and on that basis, FIR No. 320/2025 registered at Police Station Muhana, Jaipur City (South) and subsequent

[2026:RJ-JP:6002]

[CRLMP-925/2026]

(5 of 5)

criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR, qua petitioners, have been quashed and set-aside, the accused petitioner no.1 Brijesh S/o Godu Ram, who is presently confined in judicial custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. However, in view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (481 of BNSS 2023), the petitioner no.1 Brijesh S/o Godu Ram is directed to file a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/and a surety in the like amount within four weeks from today before the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court which will be effective for a period of six months thereafter with the stipulation that in the event of special leave petition being filed against this order or on grant of leave, he on receipt of the notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶47

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned jail superintendent for information and compliance.

¶48

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶49

DK/171

Brijesh Son of Godu Ram, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Son of Godu Ram, 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

Sanjay Meena S/O Failiram Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Meena S/O Failiram Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Sharma S/O Sh. Sitaram Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Praveen Kumar Jhajhria S/O Shri Sanwarmal Jhajhria Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Babita Kumari Meena Daughter of Shri Suaa Lal Meena, Wife of Shri Girraj Prasad Sangadiya, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mankesh Meena Son of Shri Amratlal Meena, Vs the State of Rajasthan