Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hari Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28908) on 4 July, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:28908]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4984/2025

1.          Hari Singh S/o Khet Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
            Village Sonu, Hukme Ki Chakki, Tehsil And District
            Jaisalmer
2.          Chanda W/o Hari Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village
            Sonu, Hukme Ki Chakki, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer
3.          Bhur Singh S/o Khet Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
            Village Sonu, Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer
4.          Kastur Kanwar W/o Khet Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
            Village Sonu, Hukme Ki Chakki, Twhsil And District
            Jaisalmer
                                                                     ----petitionerss
                                       Versus
1.          State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.          Geeta Devi W/o Late Shri Chanana Ram, R/o Chelak,
            Khurchi, Jaisalmer. At Present Residing At Gafur Bhatta,
            Kacchi Basti, Jasalmer , Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Respondents


For petitioners(s)           :     Mr. Ram Singh Rawal
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Narendra Singh, PP
                                   Mr. Bajrang Singh for complainant



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

04/07/2025

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under

Section 528 BNSS, the petitionerss have prayed for the following

reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitionerss that the Cr. Misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the entire proceeding arising out of FIR No.29/2025 Of Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaisalmer may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Any other order which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

[2025:RJ-JD:28908] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4984/2025]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case and

they have played no role whatsoever in commission of the alleged

crime. Learned counsel further submits that a compromise has

been arrived at between the parties and therefore, there is no

possibility of the petitioners getting convicted for the offences

punishable under Section 115(2), 64(1), 64(2)(m), 91, 351(2), 69

of BNS.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that after compromise

between the parties, petitioner Bhur Singh and Geeta Devi have

started living together as husband and wife. He submitted that

since petitioner Bhur Singh and Geeta Devi are now living

together, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by

continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners as the

same may prejudice the rights of the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant concurs with the factum

that the petitioner Bhur Singh and Geeta Devi are presently living

together as husband and wife. He has shown no objection in case

the impugned FIR, and the entire criminal proceedings are

quashed and set aside on the basis of the said compromise.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a bare perusal of

the FIR would indicate that the offences under Sections 115(2),

64(1), 64(2)(m), 91, 351(2), 69 of BNS have found to be

prima facie proved against the petitioners and, therefore, it is not

a fit case where the impugned FIR can be quashed and criminal

proceedings be set-aside on the basis of compromise between the

parties.

[2025:RJ-JD:28908] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4984/2025]

5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of

"Prashant Bhartiya v. State of Delhi & Ors." (Criminal

Appeal No.708 of 2021)" decided on 30.07.2021 was pleased to

quash and set aside the FIR wherein the allegations under Section

376 of IPC were levelled against the accused person.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in the case of "Dhabba Nath v. State of Rajasthan &

Anr." (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4119/2021) decided on

06.04.2022 was also pleased to quash and set aside the FIR

lodged against the petitioners for the offences punishable under

Section 376 of IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act on the basis of

compromise between the parties.

7. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of "Gian Singh V. State of

Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 wherein it was

held as under:-

'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 accordance 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

[2025:RJ-JD:28908] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4984/2025]

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 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.'

8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case

and looking to the fact that the petitioners and the complainant-

respondent No.2 have settled their dispute amicably, there is no

possibility of the accused-petitioners being convicted in the case

pending against him. This Court is of the opinion that no useful

purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings

against the petitioners pending. Thus, keeping in view the

observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gian

[2025:RJ-JD:28908] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4984/2025]

Singh and Prashant Bhartiya (supra), this Court is inclined to

quash and set aside the impugned FIR

9. Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed.