Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khema Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:40346) on 9 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:40346]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4232/2025
Khema Ram S/o Shri Bhoma Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Village Raisar Tehsil Shergarh District Jodhpur Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Paras Ram S/o Shri Dhokalram, R/o Solanikiya Tal Tehsil
Shergarh District Jodhpur Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP
Mr. Mahipal Vishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
09/09/2025
1. The instant Criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of F.I.R.
No.363/2024 registered at Police Station Shergarh, District
Jodhpur (Rural), and all consequential proceedings for the
offences under Section 137(2) of BNS.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter
has already been compromised between the parties as is borne
out from the compromise-deed.
3. In view thereof, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
complainant submits that the respondent No.2/complainant is not
inclined to press charges against the petitioner and proceed
further in the matter.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 02:15:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40346] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4232/2025]
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mukesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) No.492/2025]. He urges that the
impugned FIR as well as all consequential proceedings may be
quashed on the basis of compromise. The aforesaid judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is being reproduced
hereinbelow :-
"1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned
counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for
the second and third respondents.
3. The second respondent is the first informant at whose instance, a
First Information Report was registered on 18th September, 2016 for
the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 363, 366, 376 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, 'POCSO Act'). The
third respondent is the victim of the offence. As can be seen from the
allegations in the First Information Report (FIR), the alleged incident
is of September, 2016. In the FIR, the second respondent has alleged
that the age of the victim was 17 years.
4. Our attention was invited to the marriage certificate issued by the
Registrar of Hindu Marriages and Sub- Registrar, Varanasi which
records that the marriage between the appellant and third respondent
has been solemnized on 5th December, 2016. The date of birth of the
third respondent - victim is shown therein as 20th July, 1998. It is
also brought on record that from the wedlock between the appellant
and the third respondent, two children have been born whose
documents have been produced along with Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition No.10906 of 2025.
5. On the last date, we had directed learned counsel appearing for
the State to get the marriage certificate relied upon by the parties
duly verified. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by Dr. Atul
Tripathi, ACP, Sarnath in which it is stated that the marriage
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 02:15:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40346] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4232/2025]
certificate has been verified and it is found to be genuine and in fact
a true copy thereof has been produced along with the affidavit.
6. Our attention is invited to the affidavit filed by the third respondent
in which she has accepted the fact that she is happily married to the
appellant and they have been residing together. She has disclosed her
date of birth as 20th July, 1998. In the record of the Primary School,
as can be seen from document at Annexure 'P-1', the date of birth of
the third respondent is shown as 20th July, 1998. Ossification test
was conducted during the investigation. The report of the test is that
on the date of commission of the offence, the age of the third
respondent may be between 17 ½ years to 19 years. There are
documents on record to show that the date of birth of the third
respondent was 20th July, 1998. Therefore, when the offence was
allegedly committed in September, 2016 she was already a major.
7. Now that the appellant and third respondent are happily married,
no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution as it will
cause undue harassment to the appellant, the third respondent and
their children.
8. Coming to the impugned order, we find that the marriage
certificate was placed on record before the High Court. In fact, no
objection by the first informant is also recorded in the impugned
order. Surprisingly, the High Court instead of entertaining the
petition for quashing on the ground of settlement, has observed that
the application for dropping criminal proceedings on the basis
compromise may be moved before the Trial Court. The High Court
completely lost sight of the fact that the Trial Court could not have
recorded the settlement and in fact, this was a fit case for the High
Court to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. by quashing the proceedings. Unnecessarily, the parties have
been forced to come to this Court.
9. The impugned order is set aside. FIR No.567 of 2016 registered
with Cholapur Police Station, District Varanasi and proceedings of
the Sessions Trial No.1332 of 2021 pending before the Special Judge,
POCSO Act, Varanasi are hereby quashed.
10. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 02:15:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40346] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4232/2025]
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 -complainant and
learned Public Prosecutor concur with the fact of compromise and
submit that in view of the compromise, they have no objection if
the FIR in question is quashed.
6. In compliance of the order dated 26.08.2025, learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted the status report dated 21.08.2025,
wherein the factum of compromise has been verified. It is further
mentioned in the report that the victim in her statement recorded
under Section 180 & 183 of BNSS has stated that neither
untoward incident nor anything wrong happened to her, however,
the present case has been lodged by her family as she left the
house without informing them. The report dated 21.08.2025 be
taken on record.
7. In the premise, applying the ratio in decision of Mahesh
Mukund Patel (Supra), I deem it just and proper to invoke
inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023
(Section 482 Cr.P.C) to avoid undue hardship to the parties.
8. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the
F.I.R. No.363/2024 registered at Police Station Shergarh, District
Jodhpur (Rural) for offences under Sections 137(2) of BNS and all
consequential proceedings against the petitioner are hereby
quashed.
9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
354-mSingh/-
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 02:15:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
