CRLMP/5909/2026 of BHOLARAM S/O SHREE MANGILAL Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 8 September 2026

Order

08/09/2026 Instant petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred on behalf of the

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-5909/2026] accused-petitioners with the prayer for quashing the criminal proceeding pending before the Court of ld. Special Judge Bomb Blast Cases, Jaipur, District Jaipur, in Criminal Case No.04/2024 arising out of F.I.R. No.569/2022 registered at Police Station Amer, Jaipur City (North) for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 452, 325, 308, 148 & 149 of I.P.C. in terms of compromise. In the present case, during the trial, the charges were framed against the accused-persons under section 148, 149, 341, 323, 452, 504, 325 & 308 of IPC but the accused-petitioners and the complainant-respondents entered into a compromise and the dispute between them was amicably settled. The parties moved a compromise through their Advocates before the ld. Trial Court seeking verification of compromise in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 452, 325, 308, 148 & 149 of IPC. The Trial Court, vide its order dated 03.06.2026 verified the compromise qua offence punishable under Section 323, 341 & 504 of I.P.C, but kept the trial pending for the remaining offence i.e. 452, 325, 308, 148 & 149 of IPC. as the offence is non-compoundable. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners has argued that in the present case, both the parties have entered into a written compromise dt.03.06.2026, whereby the dispute between them has been amicably settled, and on that basis, the petitioners have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 & 504 of I.P.C., there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioners for the remaining alleged offence. It is

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-5909/2026] also argued that as the compromise has been arrived at between the parties by way of mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioners for the remaining alleged offences and continuation of such proceedings may disturb the compromise reached between them. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner. Having considered the overall facts & circumstances of the case and considering that a compromise has been arrived at between the petitioners & the respondents, this Court finds that there is no possibility of the petitioners being convicted in the cases pending against them before the Court concerned. Further, once the dispute has been settled by way of mutual compromise, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, JT 2012 (9) S.C. 426, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case in which the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner deserves to be quashed while exercising powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed in terms of the compromise. The criminal proceedings pending before the Court of ld. Special Judge Bomb Blast Cases, Jaipur, District Jaipur, in Criminal Case No.04/2024 arising out of F.I.R. No.569/2022

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-5909/2026] registered at Police Station Amer, Jaipur City (North) are, hereby, quashed, qua the present petitioners in terms of the compromise. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J 198/SAURABH