Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rahul Vishwas vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:1274) on 9 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:1274]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 10768/2025
1. Rahul Vishwas S/o Suresh Kumar Vishwas, Aged About 29
Years, Residing Inside Lal Pole, Jalore Rajasthan
2. Dinesh Kumar S/o Parasmal Darji, Aged About 34 Years,
Residing Outside Lal Pole, Bapu Nagar, Jalore Rajasthan
3. Ravindra Singh S/o Indra Singh Bhati, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of Bhensra, Jaiselmer. District Jaiselmer
Rajasthan
4. Hadmanaram S/o Mularam Meghwal, Aged About 40
Years, Resident Of Devki, Jalore, District Jalore Rajasthan
5. Kunyaram S/o Talchram Heeragar, Aged About 47 Years,
Resident Of Deshu, Jalore, District Jalore Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Bhanwarlal, Resident Of Rajendra Nagar, Jalore, Tehsil
And Districtjalore Raj.
3. Sanjay Kumar Sen S/o Late Bhanwarlal, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of Rajendra Nagar, Jalore, Tehsil And
District Jalore (Raj).
4. Gopalkrishan S/o Late Bhanwarlal, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Rajendra Nagar, Jalore, Tehsil And District
Jalore (Raj).
5. Shankarlal S/o Rawta Ji, Resident Of Rajendra Nagar,
Jalore, Tehsil And District Jalore Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.S. Jodha, PP
Mr. Shubham Kachhwah
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order 09/01/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main accused has already entered into a compromise in the matter, pursuant to which the petition has been allowed.
(Uploaded on 12/01/2026 at 08:00:33 PM) (Downloaded on 12/01/2026 at 08:46:50 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:1274] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-10768/2025]
2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.0286/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali (Jalore), District Jalore, for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 379 IPC and all the consequential criminal proceedings pursuant thereto, on the basis of compromise.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the respondents No. 2/1 & 2/2 who are LRs of deceased complainant, and the respondent No.3-joint purchaser of the disputed property, have already entered into a compromise and on the basis of it, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the investigation and trial against the petitioner for the alleged offences as the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties. The compromise has also been produced on record.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2/1, 2/2 & 3 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and resolved their dispute amicably and the respondent- complainant side does not want to press the charges levelled in the FIR against the petitioner as aforesaid. The complainant side has no objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT 2012(9) SC - 426 has held as below:-
(Uploaded on 12/01/2026 at 08:00:33 PM) (Downloaded on 12/01/2026 at 08:46:50 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:1274] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-10768/2025] "57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre- dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because (Uploaded on 12/01/2026 at 08:00:33 PM) (Downloaded on 12/01/2026 at 08:46:50 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:1274] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-10768/2025] of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent-complainant side have settled their dispute amicably and thereby there is no possibility of accused-petitioner being convicted in the case lodged against him. When once the disputes have been settled by the mutual compromise, then no useful purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending.
8. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS.
9. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed. The FIR No.0286/2020 registered at Police Station Kotwali (Jalore), District Jalore, and all consequential proceedings for the alleged offences (Uploaded on 12/01/2026 at 08:00:33 PM) (Downloaded on 12/01/2026 at 08:46:50 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:1274] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-10768/2025] against the petitioner are hereby quashed on the basis of compromise.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J 226-Hanuman/-
(Uploaded on 12/01/2026 at 08:00:33 PM) (Downloaded on 12/01/2026 at 08:46:50 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)