Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sumit Kumar Mali vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:38770) on 28 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:38770]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7043/2025
1. Sumit Kumar Mali S/o Jesaram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Vera Dhana Wala, Ummedabad, District Jalore
2. Monturam S/o Fusaram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Shri
Palnagar, Ummedabad, District Jalore
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Jai Singh S/o Nandaram, R/o Mahradasi, Tehsil Mandawa,
District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukhdev Patel
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Singh Pawar, Public
Prosecutor
Mr. Kshitij Vyas for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
28/08/2025
1. The instant petition has been filed for quashing of the FIR
and entire proceedings in connection with FIR No.79/2022,
registered at Police Station Bishangarh, District Jalore for the
offences under Section 307 & 34 of the IPC.
2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute
in this matter is inter-se between the parties which does not affect
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:38770] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7043/2025]
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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:38770] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7043/2025]
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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:38770] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7043/2025]
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.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:38770] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7043/2025]
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 instant criminal misc. petition is allowed. The
FIR No.79/2022, registered at Police Station Bishangarh, District
Jalore and all consequential proceedings thereof are hereby
quashed.
13. The accused petitioners are acquitted from the charges and if
they are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.
14. The stay petition is disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
109-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
