Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sajjan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:40785) on 9 September, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:40785]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7615/2025

Sajjan Singh S/o Late Shri Babu Singh, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident Of Village Bastawa Tehsil Balesar District Jodhpur
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2.       Bhupendra Singh Bhati S/o Shri Deelip Ji Bati, Aged
         About 43 Years, Resident Of 21/24 Chopasni Housing
         Board Jodhpur
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. R.S. Choudhary
                                Mr. R.S. Gaur
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP
                                Mr. Shishpal Kashniya for respondent
                                No.2



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

09/09/2025

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS) on behalf of the

petitioner for quashing of the entire proceeding pending against

them arising out of FIR No.45/2015 registered at Police Station

Chopasani Housing Board, District Jodhpur for the offences under

Sections 341, 323, 326 & 307 of the IPC, on the ground of

compromise.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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

(Uploaded on 13/09/2025 at 04:43:48 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40785] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7615/2025]

their disputes through amicable settlement, for which a

compromise-deed has been executed.

3. It is also submitted that It is also submitted that upon the

aforementioned compromise, the learned Court below vide order

dated 08.01.2025, has verified the compromise between the

parties to the extent of the offences under Sections 323 & 341 of

IPC. However, the learned Court below has declined to verify the

compromise with regard to the offences under Sections 326 & 307

of IPC on the ground that the said offences are non-

compoundable. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner 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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 and

Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. : Criminal

Appeal No.686/2014.

5. 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.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record more particularly the police report,

nature of allegation and the order of the learned trial Court. The

(Uploaded on 13/09/2025 at 04:43:48 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40785] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7615/2025]

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.

8. 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.

9. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Narinder Singh (supra) has laid down certain principles through

which the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., shall be guided by established

principles to either accept a settlement and quash the proceedings

or reject the settlement and direct the continuation of criminal

proceedings:

"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or

(Uploaded on 13/09/2025 at 04:43:48 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40785] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7615/2025]

refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(I) to (V).....

(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship."

10. 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

(Uploaded on 13/09/2025 at 04:43:48 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40785] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7615/2025]

affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to

maintain harmonious relationships between the two sides, to end-

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.