[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Harpreet Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:15111) on 1 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:15111]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                              JODHPUR
      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3866/2026

1.          Harpreet Singh S/o Jagdish Singh, Aged About 22 Years,
            R/o 12 H, Hisyamaki, Ps New Mandi Gharsana, District
            Sriganganagar, Raj. (Presently Lodged In Sub Jail
            Anupgarh)
2.          Sukhwant Singh Alias Sukhas S/o Harbans Singh, Aged
            About 25 Years, R/o 6 Md-A, Ps New Mandi Gharsana,
            District Sriganganagar, Raj. (Presently Lodged In Sub Jail
            Anupgarh)
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                   ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Ankit Ghorela, Adv.

For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Sameer Pareek, P.P.
                                  Ms. Soma, Complainant in Person
                                  with Victim/Prosecutrix


              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order 01/04/2026

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of

filing an application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. at the instance of

applicants-accused herein below:

S.No.                        Particulars of the Case

     2.   Concerned Police Station                   New Mandi Gharsana
     3.   District                                   Sri Ganganagar
     4.   Offences alleged in the FIR                87, 70(1) of BNS, 2023
     5.   Offences added, if any                     -

6. Date of passing of impugned 23.03.2026 order

2. Learned counsel for the applicants-accused submits that the

F.I.R. in question has been lodged by the mother of the victim,

alleging forcible abduction and rape. It is further submitted that

the victim had a long-standing acquaintance with accused-

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 02:13:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15111] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-3866/2026]

applicant No. 1, and both were planning to marry. However, their

relationship was not acceptable to the victim's family members.

Consequently, the present F.I.R. has been filed due to vengeance,

annoyance, and social pressure.

2.1 It is submitted that, as a matter of fact, subsequent to the

lodging of the F.I.R. in question, the issue pertaining to the

relationship between accused-applicant No. 1 and the victim was

amicably resolved between the family members of both sides. It is

contended that a compromise arrived at between the parties was

placed on record even before the Court of the learned Special

Judge (Women Harassment and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar,

and it was specifically recorded that the learned counsel for the

complainant had no objection if the benefit of bail was granted to

the applicants. However, the same was not considered by the

learned Trial Court in view of the nature of the allegations levelled

against the applicants.

2.2 It is further contended that the family members of both sides

have now given their consent for the marriage of accused-

applicant No. 1 with the victim. It is also submitted that there is

no substantial age difference between them, as accused-applicant

No. 1 is 22 years old and the victim is aged about 18 years and 9

months.

2.3 So far as the allegations against accused-applicant No. 2 are

concerned, it is contended that the only allegation attributed to

him is that of accompanying accused-applicant No. 1 and the

victim. The learned counsel for the applicants-accused has placed

reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 02:13:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15111] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-3866/2026]

Singh vs. State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012)

10 SCC 303, as well as the judgment dated 07.08.2023 passed

by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 3723/2023

(Ravindra Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan and

Another).

2.4 Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, it is contended

that in cases of a similar nature, Coordinate Benche of this Court,

particularly, while considering the factum of compromise between

the parties and the intent to solemnize marriage between the

accused and the victim (both being adults), have even proceeded

to quash the criminal proceedings. Thus, it is submitted that the

applicants-accused deserve to be released on bail in the present

case.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the bail application and submitted that, in view of the

grave nature of the allegations levelled against the applicants, no

indulgence can be granted merely on the basis of a compromise

arrived at between the parties.

4. On the other hand, the complainant--mother, namely Soma

W/o Sukhjit Singh--and the victim ('M') personally appeared

before this Court. The complainant produced her identity card for

verification and submitted that a compromise has been executed

on 23.03.2026. It is further candidly submitted that both families

have consented to the marriage of accused-applicant No. 1 with

the victim, and thus, they have no objection if the benefit of bail is

extended in favour of the applicants.

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 02:13:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15111] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-3866/2026]

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered the

statement made by the complainant, who voluntarily appeared

before this Court, and perused the material available on record.

6. It is observed that even during the course of arguments on

the bail application before the learned Trial Court, the learned

counsel representing the complainant had specifically referred to

the compromise and stated that they had no objection if the

benefit of bail was extended in favour of the applicants. The

reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicants on the

judgment in Ravindra Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan

(supra) also assumes relevance in the present case. The relevant

extract thereof is reproduced hereinbelow:

2. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2021 decided on 30.07.2021, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

"3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the Appellant had committed an offence Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that both the Accused (Appellant) and Respondent No. 2 were living together for a considerable while. The complainant's allegation is that the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.

4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.

5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 02:13:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15111] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-3866/2026]

further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside; the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in any other pending proceedings, which shall 20-09-2022 be decided in accordance with law.

7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the following order for consideration passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.4119/2021 decided on 06.04.2022 (Dhabba Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), which reads as follows:-

"1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the I.T. Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of investigation, the petitioner and the complainant have entered into a compromise and thus, no dispute remains pending between them and the complainant does not wish to continue with the present litigation.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the compromise in question has been produced before the Investigating Officer, who has verified the factum of compromise and the same has been executed without any force or coercion.

4. Learned counsel submits that the complaint in question came be to be lodged by the complainant on account of an audio of the conversation between the petitioner and complainant getting viral and now the parties have decided to resolve the dispute having regard to the fact that the petitioner and complainant are close relatives.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant also accepts the fact of the compromise and submits that even the husband of the

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 02:13:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15111] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-3866/2026]

prosecutrix/complainant has signed the compromise.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering that the complainant is aunt (Mami) of the present petitioner and also considering that the FIR in question was lodged under social pressure and also finding that the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by the Larger Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604], the aforesaid FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.

7. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.

8. The stay application also stands disposed of."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. A copy of compromise deed has been passed over to this court, which is taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303].

6. In view of compromise arrived at between the parties and applying the ratio of the decision in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra); Dhabba Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) & Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.260/2023 registered at Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur, for the offence under Sections 376(2)

(n), 377 of IPC alongwith entire proceedings pursuant thereto qua the petitioner, are hereby quashed.

7. Thus, looking to the facts stated above coupled with the

factum that the investigation qua the applicants-accused have

been completed; that compromise has been arrived at; that the

(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 02:13:14 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15111] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-3866/2026]

applicants-accused are in custody for more than two months; and

that the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time to

conclude, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be

served by keeping the applicant-accused in detention for an

indefinite period. Hence, without commenting on the merits or

demerits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the