Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:10876]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1644/2026
1. Rajesh S/o Laxmi Lal Ji, Aged About 45 Years, Kalalwati,
Rajnagar District- Rajsamand Raj.
2. Laxmi Lal Alias Laxmi Narayan S/o Mangilal Ji, Aged
About 70 Years, Kalalwati, Rajnagar District- Rajsamand
Raj.
3. Shanta Devi W/o Laxmi Lal Ji, Aged About 65 Years,
Kalalwati, Rajnagar District- Rajsamand Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Indra S/o Rajesh, Kalalwati, Rajnagar District- Rajsamand
Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Saruparia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order 05/03/2026 This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing of proceedings pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand in Criminal Regular Case No.149/2019 (arising out of FIR No.104/2019 registered at P.S. Mahila Police Thana, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand), "State Vs. Rajesh & Ors.", whereby the learned trial court vide order dated 20.08.2025 refused to attest the compromise to the extent of offence under Sections 498-A, 354A IPC, as being non-compoundable.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 11:39:03 AM) (Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 09:45:32 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:10876] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1644/2026] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the matter has been settled amicably.
Learned counsel for the 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 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 (Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 11:39:03 AM) (Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 09:45:32 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:10876] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1644/2026] 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 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 528 of BNSS.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 11:39:03 AM) (Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 09:45:32 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:10876] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1644/2026] Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed; the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand in Criminal Regular Case No.149/2019 (arising out of FIR No.104/2019 registered at P.S. Mahila Police Thana, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand) titled as "State Vs. Sameer", are hereby quashed.
Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J 113-Sanjay/-
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 11:39:03 AM) (Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 09:45:33 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)