Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jamal Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:39577) on 4 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:39577]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7177/2025
1. Jamal Khan S/o Pathan Khan, Aged About 56 Years,
Residing At Chhatri Nadi, Loradi, Dejgra, Police Station
Jhanwar, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
2. Maksud Alam S/o Jamal Khan,, Aged About 38 Years,
Residing At Chhatri Nadi, Loradi, Dejgra, Police Station
Jhanwar, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
3. Resham Khan S/o Gani Kha, Aged About 32 Years,
Residing At Chhatri Nadi, Loradi, Dejgra, Police Station
Jhanwar, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Manohar Singh S/o Indra Singh, R/o Kachchhawaha
Nagar, Chokha, Police Station Rajeev Gandhi Nagar,
Jodhpur West.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parwat Singh Rathore
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP
Mr. Akshay Surana & Mr. Tarun Dudia
for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
04/09/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 BNSS on behalf of the petitioners for
quashing of the entire proceeding pending against them arising
out of FIR No.160/2025, registered at Police Station Rajiv Gandhi
Nagar, Jodhpur, District - Jodhpur City West for the offences under
[2025:RJ-JD:39577] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7177/2025]
Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 110 & 303(2) of
BNS on the ground of compromise.
2. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court vide order
dated 28.08.2025, the parties have appeared before the
Investigating Officer and submitted their compromise before him.
3. As per the report dated 03.09.2025, sent by the SHO, P.S.
Rajiv Nagar, Jodhpur City West, the parties have appeared before
the Investigating Officer and submitted their compromise. The
report is taken on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute
in this matter is inter-se between the parties which does not affect
the societal interest or anyway disturb the tranquility or public
peace. It is further submitted that both the parties have settled
their disputes through amicable settlement, for which a
compromise-deed has been executed.
5. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
that the parties have entered into compromise, there remains no
controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to
continue the criminal proceedings further.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
complainant-respondent No.2 admits the fact of compromise and
submits that the complainant-respondent No.2 is willing if the FIR
and the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise
entered in between the parties.
[2025:RJ-JD:39577] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7177/2025]
8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition but does
not refute the fact of compromise having been entered into the
parties.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record more particularly the police report,
nature of allegation and the compromise deed executed in
between the parties. The parties to the lis have resolved their
dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal
proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same.
10. Some of the offences alleged in this matter are non-
compoundable, however, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Gian Singh (supra) has propounded that if it is convinced that
offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the
public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such
proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace
and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not
hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers
vested in it. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution
becomes a lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame
prosecution would be a waste of time and energy that will also
unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.
11. This court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and feels that where the dispute is
essentially inter se between the parties, either they are relatives,
neighbours or having business relationship and which does not
affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to
maintain harmonious relationships between the two sides, to end-
[2025:RJ-JD:39577] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7177/2025]
up the dispute in between them permanently as well as for
restitution of relationship, the High Court should exercise its
inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent
proceedings initiated thereto.
12. Here in this case, though some of the offences are not
compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably,
the complainant-respondent No.2 do not wish to continue the
proceedings against the petitioners and, that is essentially in
between the parties, which is not affecting public peace and
tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain the harmony and to
resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed
appropriate to quash the FIR and the entire proceedings
undertaken in pursuance thereof.
13. Accordingly the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed. The
FIR No.160/2025, registered at Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,
Jodhpur, District - Jodhpur City West and all consequential
proceedings for offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190,
115(2), 126(2), 110 & 303(2) of BNS against the petitioners are
hereby quashed.
14. The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
110-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
