Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jawed Mansoori vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29130) on 7 July, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:29130]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5148/2025

1.          Jawed Mansoori S/o Babu Bhai Mansoori, Aged About 22
            Years, R/o Village Fatehpura, Tehsil Fatehpura, Dist.
            Dahod, Gujarat.
2.          Yashmin W/o Jawed, Aged About 18 Years, D/o Iqbal
            Mansoori, R/o Fatehpura, Tehsil Fatehpura, Dist. Dahod,
            Gujarat     At   Present      R/o     Krishna        Montesary      School,
            Chaprasi Colony, Bhilwara.
                                                                        ----Petitioners
                                        Versus
1.          State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.          Iqbal Mansoori S/o Gani Mohammad Mansoori, R/o
            Behind    Krishna      Montesary         School,         Chaprasi   Colony,
            Bhilwara.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Shriram Choudhary, PP
                                    Mr. Bhawani Singh Ransi for
                                    complainant



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

07/07/2025

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under

Section 528 BNSS, the petitioners have prayed for the following

reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioners that the Cr. Misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the entire proceeding arising out of FIR No.309/2025 of Police Station Pratapnagar, District Bhilwara, qua the petitioners may kindly be quashed and set aside."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioner No.1 has been falsely implicated in the present case.

[2025:RJ-JD:29130] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-5148/2025]

Learned counsel further submits that a compromise has been

arrived at between the parties and therefore, there is no

possibility of the petitioner No.1 getting convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 89, 126(2), 3(5) of BNS;

and Sections 5 and 6 of POCSO Act.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that after compromise

between the parties, petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 have

started living together as husband and wife. He submitted that

since petitioners No.1 & 2 are now living together, therefore, no

fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal

proceedings against the petitioner No.1 as the same may

prejudice his rights.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant concurs with the factum

that the petitioners No.1 & 2 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. Per Contra, Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a bare

perusal of the FIR would indicate that the offences alleged have

been found to be prima facie proved against the petitioner No.1

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.

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

[2025:RJ-JD:29130] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-5148/2025]

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 therein 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

[2025:RJ-JD:29130] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-5148/2025]

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-petitioner No.1 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 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.

The impugned FIR No.309/2025, registered at Police Station