Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gajendra vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:40484) on 10 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:40484]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7506/2025
1. Gajendra S/o Rewant Ram, Aged About 59 Years, Ratiyon
Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur
2. Umedram S/o Rewant Ram, Aged About 57 Years, Ratiyon
Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur
3. Manohar Lal S/o Rewant Ram, Aged About 65 Years,
Ratiyon Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur
4. Arun S/o Jawahar Lal, Aged About 35 Years, Ratiyon Ki
Dhani, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor
2. Sukh Dev S/o Kabaram, Basani Choulawata, Natiyon Ki
Dhani, Sibali Nadi, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP
Mr. Jitendra Mohan Choudhary (for
respondent no.2)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
10/09/2025
The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under
Section 482 Cr.PC/528 BNSS on behalf of the petitioners for
quashing of the entire proceeding pending against them in the
Court of learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Bhopalgarh,
Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Case
No.26/2012 arising out of FIR No.31/2012 registered at Police
Station Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural on the ground of
compromise.
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 08:29:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40484] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7506/2025]
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 and submitted before the
learned trial court.
It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
that the learned trial court has attested the compromise for the
offences under Sections 341, 504/34 of IPC but refused to attest
the compromise for the offences under Section 283 of IPC as the
same is not compoundable and kept the proceeding pending by it.
It is submitted that as 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.
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 reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303.
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.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record more particularly the police report,
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 08:29:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40484] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7506/2025]
nature of allegation and order of the learned trial Court. 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.
Some of the offences alleged in this matter are
non-compoundable, however, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303 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. This court is aptly guided by the principles
propounded by Hon'ble the 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-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.
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 08:29:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40484] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7506/2025]
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 petitioner/s 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.
Accordingly the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed.
The Fir No.31/2012 and all the consequential proceedings pending
in the Court of learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate in Case
No.26/2012 arising out of the said FIR registered at Police Station
Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur are hereby quashed and set aside.
The accused petitioners are acquitted from the charges and if
they are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.
The stay petition is disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
155-AjaySingh/-
(Uploaded on 12/09/2025 at 08:29:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
