Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahant Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6241) on 3 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6241]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5921/2023
1. Roopa Ram S/o Prabhu Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o-
Panchota, P.s. Bhadrajun, District- Jalore.
2. Kirna Rani W/o Surta Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o-
Panchota, P.s. Bhadrajun, District- Jalore.
3. Surta Ram S/o Mula Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o-
Panchota, P.s. Bhadrajun, District- Jalore.
4. Babulal S/o Chamna Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o-
Panchota, P.s. Bhadrajun, District- Jalore.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mahant Yadav S/o Chuman Yadav, Aged About 54 Years,
R/o- Panchota, P.s. Bhadrajun, District- Jalore.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3601/2023
1. Mahant Yadav S/o Shri Chuman Yadav, Aged About 54
Years, R/o Gram Panchayat Panchota Panchayat Samiti
Ahore Dist. Jalore Raj.
2. Mool Singh S/o Shri Chhail Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Vill. Panchota Tehsil Ahore Dist. Jalore Raj.
3. Hari Singh S/o Shri Bheekh Singh, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o Vill. Panchota Tehsil Ahore Dist. Jalore Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Rupa Ram S/o Shri Praba Ram, R/o Vill. Panchota
Bhadrajun Dist. Jalore Raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3602/2023
1. Mahant Yadav S/o Shri Chuman Yadav, Aged About 54
Years, R/o Gram Panchayat Pachota Panchayat Samiti
Ahore Dist. Jalore Raj.
2. Mool Singh S/o Shri Chhail Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 10:15:06 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/02/2026 at 08:51:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6241] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-5921/2023]
R/o Vill. Panchota Tehsil Ahore Dist. Jalore Raj.
3. Hari Singh S/o Shri Bheekh Singh, Aged About 55 Years,
R/o Vill. Panchota Tehsil Ahore Dist. Jalore Raj.
4. Dinesh @ Divya Yadav S/o Shri Mahant Yadav, Aged
About 17 Years, Gram Panchayat Panchota Panchayat
Samiti Ashore Dist. Jalore Through His Guardian-Father
Shri Mahant Yadav S/o Shri Chuman Yadav (Petitioner No.
1)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Kirna Rani W/o Shri Surta Ram, R/o Vill. Tarwada
Bhadrajun Dist. Jalore Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanwar Singh Deora, Mr. Kunwar
Prikshit Raj in Crl. Misc. Petition
No.5921/2023
Mr. Manish Patel, Mr. Kuldeep Singh
Solanki for respondent No.2 in Crl.
Misc. Petition No.5921/2023
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Patel, Mr. Kuldeep Singh
Solanki in Crl. Misc. Petition
Nos.3602/2023 and 3601/2023
Mr. Bhanwar Singh Deora, Mr. Kunwar
Prikshit Raj, Mr. Devkinandan Vyas for
respondent No.2 in Crl. Misc. Petition
Nos.3602/2023 and 3601/2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order 03/02/2026 The matter comes up for consideration of an application (I.A. No.01/2026) seeking preponment of the date.
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 10:15:06 AM) (Downloaded on 04/02/2026 at 08:51:02 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6241] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-5921/2023] For the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid application, the same is allowed and the matter is being heard and decided today itself.
These criminal misc. petitions under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of CrPC) have been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.0110/2023, registered at Police Station Bhadrajun, District Jalore for the offences under Sections 143, 365, 342 and 323 IPC; FIR No.0105/2023, registered at Police Station Bhadrajun, District Jalore for the offences under Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2(V), 3(2)(VA) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 143, 452, 354(B), 394, 323 and 149 IPC and FIR No.0106/2023, registered at Police Station Bhadrajun, District Jalore for the offences under Sections 3(1)(R) and 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 143, 452, 323 and 149 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the matter has been settled amicably.
Learned counsel for the respective respondent No.2 does not dispute the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties.
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 :-
"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 (Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 10:15:06 AM) (Downloaded on 04/02/2026 at 08:51:02 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6241] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-5921/2023] 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 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 (Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 10:15:06 AM) (Downloaded on 04/02/2026 at 08:51:02 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6241] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-5921/2023] 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."
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 petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of CrPC).
Accordingly, these criminal misc. petitions are allowed. The FIR No.0110/2023, registered at Police Station Bhadrajun, District Jalore for the offences under Sections 143, 365, 342 and 323 IPC; the FIR No.0105/2023, registered at Police Station Bhadrajun, District Jalore for the offences under Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2(V), 3(2)(VA) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 143, 452, 354(B), 394, 323 and 149 IPC and the FIR No.0106/2023, registered at Police Station Bhadrajun, District Jalore for the offences under Sections 3(1)(R) and 3(1)(S) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 143, 452, 323 and 149 IPC and all subsequent criminal proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J 168-170 - deep/-
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 10:15:06 AM) (Downloaded on 04/02/2026 at 08:51:02 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)