Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prem Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:30107) on 10 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:30107]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3557/2025
Prem Prakash S/o Shri Kera Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Sengvo Ka Bera, Village Ghanamagra, Tehsil Bilara, Dist.
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Shobha Jat D/o Shri Baksa Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/
o Khojanagar, Hariyadhana, Tehsil Bilara, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Birbal Ram Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
10/07/2025
By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under
Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
"It is, therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and
impugned FIR No. 0104/2013 Police Station Borunda
District Jodhpur and investigation in pursuant thereto may
kindly be quashed and set aside."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
and the respondent No.2- complainant are husband and wife. He
submits that the complainant owing to her matrimonial dispute
with the present petitioner, has lodged the impugned FIR against
him. However, now a compromise has been arrived at between the
parties. The petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2- complainant
have started living happily together and, therefore, there is no
[2025:RJ-JD:30107] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3557/2025]
possibility of the petitioner getting convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 376-D and 379 of IPC.
3. On these ground, he implored the Court to quash and set
aside the impugned FIR and all criminal proceedings arising out of
the impugned FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant concurs with the factum
that the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2- complainant are
presently living together. He has shown no objection, in case, the
impugned FIR and the entire criminal proceedings pursuant to it
are quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise between
the parties.
5. Per Contra, Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a bare
perusal of the FIR indicates that commission of the cognizable
offences as alleged against the petitioner 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.
6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case 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.
7. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:30107] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3557/2025]
under Section 376 of IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act on the basis of
compromise between the parties.
8. 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
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
[2025:RJ-JD:30107] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3557/2025]
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.'
9. 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 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
10. Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed.
The impugned FIR No.104/2023, registered at Police Station
Borunda, District Jodhpur and the entire criminal proceedings
pursuant thereto are quashed qua the petitioner No.1.
11. Stay application is disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
89-himanshu/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
