Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sanjay Vaishnav vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28994) on 4 July, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:28994]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4862/2025

Sanjay Vaishnav S/o Shri Babu Das, Aged About 50 Years, R/0
213-214, Bhawani Nagar, Old Housing Board, Behind Krishi
Mandi, Pali, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.          State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2.          Smt Savita Spouse/o Shri Jayaram, R/o Ambedkar Hostel,
            Bapu Nagar, Pali.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Suniel Purohit
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP
                                  Mr. Kshitij Vyas (Respondent No.2)



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

04/07/2025

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under

Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following

reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that the present criminal misc. petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita my kindly be allowed and the impugned FIR dated 03.05.2025 bearing no. 250/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Pali, Disrtict Pali may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and he

had played no role whatsoever in commission of the alleged crime.

Learned counsel further submits that a compromise has been

[2025:RJ-JD:28994] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4862/2025]

arrived at between the parties and therefore, there is no

possibility of the petitioner getting convicted for the offences

punishable under Section 75(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)

(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. It is also argued that no fruitful

purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings

against the petitioner even after the compromise between the

parties as the same may prejudice the rights of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant concurs with the fact

that the compromise has been arrived between the parties. He

has no objection, in case, the impugned FIR and the entire

criminal proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed and set aside

on the basis of compromise.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a bare perusal of

the factual report would indicate that the offences under Sections

75(2) BNS and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(6) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST

Act have found to be prima facie proved against the petitioner

and, therefore, it is not a fit case where the impugned FIR should

be quashed and criminal proceeding be set-aside on the basis of

compromise between the parties.

5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner 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

[2025:RJ-JD:28994] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4862/2025]

06.04.2022 was also pleased to quash and set aside the FIR

lodged against the petitioner 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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:28994] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4862/2025]

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 petitioner and the complainant-

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

possibility of the accused-petitioner 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 petitioner pending. Thus, keeping in view the

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

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

quashed and set aside the FIR No.250/2025, registered at Police

Station Kotwali Pali, District Pali and the entire criminal

proceedings pursuant thereto for the offences under Section 75(2)