[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vijay Das vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14820) on 1 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:14820]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1507/2026
1. Vijay Das S/o Shri Bhanwardas Vaishnav, Aged About 29
Years, Parbati Ps Amet District Rajsamand Rajasthan
2. Bhanwardas S/o Shri Narayandas Vaishnav, Aged About
58 Years, Parbati Ps Amet District Rajsamand Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Bhawna Vaishnav D/o Shri Bherudas Ji, Bhakroda Ps
Amet District Rajsamand Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Love Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
Mr. Naresh Khatri
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
01/04/2026
The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of
BNSS has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of criminal
proceedings in Case No.167/2019 pending before the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, Amet, District Rajsamand, for the
offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties
have settled their disputes and have arrived at a compromise.
The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the
case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in JT
2012(9) SC - 426 has held as below:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the
High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 07:04:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14820] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1507/2026]
complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct
and different from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of the
Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord
with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled
their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be
prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity,
etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim
or victim's family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have
serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise
between the victim and offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot
provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings
involving such offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand
on different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences arising from commercial,
financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony
relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, High Court may quash criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal case would put accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 07:04:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14820] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1507/2026]
other words, the High Court must consider whether it
would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of
the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of
process of law despite settlement and compromise
between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure
the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is
put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s)
is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
He, therefore, prayed that the impugned criminal
proceedings may kindly be quashed.
Learned counsel for the complainant concurs the factum of
compromise and submits that in view of the compromise, the
complainant is not inclined to further prosecute the petitioner.
In view of compromise arrived at between the parties and
applying the ratio in decision of Gian Singh (Supra) and B.S.
Joshi (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke
inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS.
Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The
criminal proceedings in Case No.167/2019 pending before the
Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Amet, District Rajsamand, for
the offence under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC, are
quashed.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
30-Hanuman/-
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 07:04:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
