[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kamlesh Vishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:17653) on 16 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:17653]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2993/2026
Kamlesh Vishnoi S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village Bhedbhakhari Tehsil Osia District Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Prem Prakash Bansal S/o Jeevan Lal Bansal, R/o Village
Bhedbhakhari Tehsil Osia District Jodhpur
3. Madhu Sharma W/o Suraj Prakash Sharma, R/o Boro Ki
Ghati Navchokia District Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divakar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
Mr. Dinesh Vishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
16/04/2026
This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS (482
CrPC) has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for
quashing criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner
before the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metro
in Criminal Case No.184/2015, titled as "State Vs. Pradeep Kaolya
& Ors.", (arising out of FIR No.333/2011, registered at Police
Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur Metropolitan), whereby the learned
trial court vide order dated 23.03.2026 has attested the
compromise under Sections 420 of IPC, however, refused to attest
the compromise to the extent of offence under Section 120-B of
IPC, as the same being non-compoundable.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 01:59:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17653] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2993/2026]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that compromise
has been arrived at between the parties and the matter has been
settled amicably.
Learned counsel for the private respondents 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
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 01:59:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17653] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2993/2026]
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 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 petitioner can be quashed while exercising
powers under Section 528 BNSS (482 CrPC).
Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the
criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the
court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metro in
Criminal Case No.184/2015, titled as "State Vs. Pradeep Kaolya &
Ors.", (arising out of FIR No.333/2011, registered at Police Station
Udaimandir, Jodhpur Metropolitan) and all other subsequent
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 01:59:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17653] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2993/2026]
criminal proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the
petitioner are hereby quashed.
Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stands
disposed of accordingly.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
93-deep/-
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 01:59:13 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
