Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kishan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25257) on 23 May, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:25257]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3861/2025

1.       Kishan Lal S/o Maing Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
         Meghwal Basti, Machda, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, Dist.
         Rajsamand, Raj.
2.       Shohan Lal S/o Maing Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
         Meghwal Basti, Machda, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, Dist.
         Rajsamand, Raj.
3.       Deepak Kumar S/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
         Meghwal Basti, Machda, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, Dist.
         Rajsamand, Raj.
4.       Smt. Dalu Bai W/o Maing Ram, Aged About 70 Years, R/o
         Meghwal Basti, Machda, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, Dist.
         Rajsamand, Raj.
5.       Noja Ram S/o Bhera Ram, Aged About 75 Years, R/o
         Meghwal Basti, Machda, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, Dist.
         Rajsamand, Raj.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.
2.       Raju Singh S/o Basant Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
         Kanadev Ka Guda, Kada Ka Talab, Tehsil And Dist.
         Rajsamand, Raj.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Ratan Ankiya
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Shriram Choudhary, PP
                                Mr. Bhim Raj Mudia for complainant


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

23/05/2025

1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition under Section

528 BNSS, the petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings

arising out of FIR No.42/2025 registered at Police Station Kelwara,

District Rajsamand for the offences punishable under Sections

115(2), 126(2), 109(1) and 189(2) of the BNS in view of the

compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2

jointly submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the

[2025:RJ-JD:25257] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3861/2025]

case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012)10 SCC 303 has

authoritatively held that while certain offences may be non-

compoundable, the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent

powers, can quash proceedings where the dispute is entirely

private in nature and does not affect public peace or order.

Learned counsel submitted that in case of Gian Singh (supra), it

was observed that where parties have amicably resolved their

differences, and the prosecution is rendered meaningless, Courts

should not hesitate to quash such proceedings to uphold the spirit

of justice, peace, and reconciliation.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar. Perused the

material available on record.

4. This Court looking to the nature of allegations levelled

against the present petitioner in the impugned FIR, vide order

dated 14.05.2025 directed the learned Public Prosecutor to

procure the case diary.

5. Upon a careful perusal of the injury report attached with the

case file, this Court finds that in the alleged incident, the injuries

suffered by the victims are simple in nature. The factual report

dated 14.05.2025 prima facie indicates that during the course of

investigation, no evidence has been found by the investigating

agency to establish the requisite mens rea (intent) or motive for

an offence under Section 109 of the BNS. The nature, number and

severity of injuries do not prima facie support the prosecution's

claim that there was an intention to commit murder.

6. In the opinion of this Court, since in the present case, all the

injuries suffered by the complainant party are simple in nature,

therefore, the continuation of the proceedings under Section 307

[2025:RJ-JD:25257] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3861/2025]

of the IPC would be an exercise in futility. This Court is also

consicious of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in the case of Shiji vs. Radhika (Criminal Appeal

No.2094 of 2011), decided on November 14, 2011 wherein, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that simply because

an offence is not compundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. by

itself, no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power

under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS. That power can be exercised

in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against

the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an

exercise in futility. The relative portion of the aforesaid judgment

is extracted below for quick reference-

"It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the arcused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the

[2025:RJ-JD:25257] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3861/2025]

process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked."

7. In light of the oral and medical evidence, the offence under

Section 109 of the BNS is not made out, and prolonging the

proceedings would be unjust. It is in the interest of justice to bury

the disputes, restore relations, and uphold social harmony. Given

these circumstances, the compromise is accepted, and further

prosecution would be an empty formality, devoid of any

meaningful outcome.

8. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed.

The entire criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR No.42/2025

registered at Police Station Kelwara, District Rajsamand for the

offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) and

189(2) of the BNS are quashed and set aside.