Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashif Alias Shahid vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:38516) on 28 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:38516]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6523/2025
1. Ashif Alias Shahid S/o Shri Salim Khan, Aged About 21
Years, Ghanerao Police Station Desuri District Pali
2. Arif S/o Salim Khan, Aged About 27 Years, Ghanerao
Police Station Desuri District Pali
3. Salim Khan S/o Gulam Rasool, Aged About 47 Years,
Ghanerao Police Station Desuri District Pali
4. Mohammad Safi S/o Gulam Rasool, Aged About 63 Years,
Ghanerao Police Station Desuri District Pali
5. Fariyad Hussain S/o Mohammad, Aged About 34 Years,
Ghanerao Police Station Desuri District Pali
6. Fakrudeen S/o Mohammad, Aged About 33 Years,
Ghanerao Police Station Desuri District Pali
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mustak S/o Kalu Khan, Ghanerao Desuri Pali Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devenda Sanwalot.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. HS Jodha, PP.
Mr. Dilip Vidoya for R/2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order 28/08/2025
1. Instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of F.I.R. No.79/2025 lodged at Police Station Desuri, District Pali, and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 189(2), 109(1) and 115(2) of BNS, 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute in this matter is inter-se between the parties which does not affect (Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 05:18:34 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38516] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-6523/2025] the societal interest or anyway disturb the tranquility or public peace. It is further submitted that both the parties have settled their disputes through amicable settlement, for which a compromise-deed has been executed.
3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the parties have entered into compromise, there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings further.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. : Criminal Appeal No.686/2014.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant-respondent No.2 admits the fact of compromise and submits that the complainant-respondent No.2 is willing if the FIR and the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record more particularly the police report, nature of allegation and the compromise deed executed in between the parties. The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same.
8. Some of the offences alleged in this matter are non- compoundable, however, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 05:18:34 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38516] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-6523/2025] Gian Singh (supra) has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and energy that will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.
9. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) has laid down certain principles through which the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., shall be guided by established principles to either accept a settlement and quash the proceedings or reject the settlement and direct the continuation of criminal proceedings:
"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
(I) to (V).....
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of (Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 05:18:34 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38516] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-6523/2025] Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship."
10. This court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and feels that where the dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are relatives, neighbours or having business relationship and which does not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to maintain harmonious relationships between the two sides, to end- up the dispute in between them permanently as well as for restitution of relationship, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings initiated thereto.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 05:18:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38516] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-6523/2025]
11. Here in this case, though some of the offences are not compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably, the complainant-respondent No.2 do not wish to continue the proceedings against the petitioners and, that is essentially in between the parties, which is not affecting public peace and tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain the harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR and the entire proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.
12. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the F.I.R. No.79/2025 lodged at Police Station Desuri, District Pali, and all consequential proceedings for offences under Sections 189(2), 109(1) and 115(2) of BNS, 2023 against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
13. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J 55-/Jitender//-
(Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 05:18:34 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)