Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Salman Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1242) on 7 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:1242]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 68/2025
Salman Khan S/o Mohammad Salim, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Near Alman Coching, Anantpura, Police Station Anantpura,
District Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Shayna W/o Slaman Khan, Aged About 23 Years, D/o
Shakeel, R/o Dr. Zakir Hussain Colony, Jodhpur. At
Present R/o Near Alman Coching, Anantpura, Police
Station Anantpura, Dist. Kota.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Sikander Khan
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.GA
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Aziz Khan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
07/01/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under
Section 482 Cr.PC on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of the
entire proceeding pending against him in the Court of learned
Special Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases),
Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial
court') in Criminal Case No.142/2023 (NCV No.27074/2023),
arising out of FIR No.139/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila
Thana West, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections
498-A and 406 of IPC, on the ground of compromise.
[2025:RJ-JD:1242] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-68/2025]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 and submitted before the
learned trial court.
3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the challan has been filed against the petitioner for the offences
under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC, however, the learned trial
court has attested the compromise for the offence under Section
406 of IPC but refused to attest the compromise for the offence
under Section 498-A of IPC as the same is not compoundable and
kept the proceeding pending by it. It is submitted that as 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 petitioner has relied upon the
judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303.
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 Dy.GA has opposed the petition.
[2025:RJ-JD:1242] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-68/2025]
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record more particularly 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 Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303 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. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:1242] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-68/2025]
inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent
proceedings initiated thereto.
9. 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 petitioner 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.
10. Accordingly the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed. The
entire proceeding pending in the Court of learned Special
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases), Jodhpur
Metropolitan in Criminal Case No.142/2023 (NCV No.27074/2023),
arising out of FIR No.139/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila
Thana West, District Jodhpur, are hereby quashed and set aside.
11. The accused petitioner is acquitted from the charges and if
he is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.
12. The stay petition is disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Abhishek Kumar
S.No.211
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
