[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ishwar Singh @ Hariom Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:15263) on 2 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:15263]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2665/2026
1. Ishwar Singh @ Hariom Singh S/o Shri Akshay Singh
Alias Akhesingh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Det, P.s.
Gangrar, Dist Chittorgarh.
2. Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Det, P.s. Gangrar, District Chittorgarh.
3. Kamal Singh S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Det, P.s. Gangrar, District Chittorgarh.
4. Bhawani Singh @ Banti S/o Shri Abhay Singh, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Ara, P.s. Gangrar, District Chittorgarh.
5. Mahipal Singh S/o Shri Narpat Singh, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Dhoda, Tehsil Gangrar, District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh, R/o Det, P.s.
Gangrar, District Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Haniya
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
Mr. Dinesh Amrani
Mr. Sidhraj Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
02/04/2026
The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the
petitioners under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of FIR
No.61/2025, registered at Police Station Gangrar, District
Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 189(2), 110, 115(2)
and 126(2) of BNS.
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:42:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15263] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2665/2026]
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that compromise
has been arrived at between the parties and the matter has been
settled amicably.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 does not dispute
the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties.
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
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
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:42:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15263] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2665/2026]
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
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."
Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), this Court is of the
opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings
pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising
powers under Section 528 of BNSS.
Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The FIR
No.61/2025, registered at Police Station Gangrar, District
Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 189(2), 110, 115(2)
and 126(2) of BNS and all subsequent proceedings sought to be
taken thereunder against the petitioners, are hereby quashed.
All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
201-deep/-
(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:42:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
