[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dungar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6240) on 3 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6240]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1755/2024
1. Bal Kishan S/o Dungar Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Plot No. 116, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Colony, Jaisalmer.
2. Ashok S/o Dungar Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Plot
No. 116, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Colony, Jaisalmer.
3. Ram Chandra S/o Balu, Aged About 44 Years, R/o S-2,
Transport Nagar, Jaisalmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Koja Ram S/o Sona Ram, R/o Khetasar, Tehsil Osiyan,
Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8891/2022
Dungar Ram S/o Sagra Ram, Aged About 51 Years, A-116, Dr.
Rajendra Prasad Colony, Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Koja Ram S/o Sona Ram, Khetasar, Osian, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8913/2022
Dungar Ram S/o Sagra Ram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o A-116,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Colony, Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Raymal Ram S/o Sona Ram, R/o Khetasar, Osian, Dist.
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 06:39:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/02/2026 at 08:51:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6240] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-1755/2024]
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1749/2024
1. Bal Kishan S/o Dungar Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Plot No. 116, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Colony, Jaisalmer.
2. Ashok S/o Dungar Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Plot
No. 116, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Colony, Jaisalmer.
3. Ram Chandra S/o Balu, Aged About 44 Years, R/o S-2,
Transport Nagar, Jaisalmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Raymal Ram S/o Sona Ram, R/o Khetasar, Tehsil Osiyan,
District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani
Mr. Anil Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Prateek Tak
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
03/02/2026
These criminal misc. petitions under Section 528 of BNSS
(482 of CrPC) have been preferred by the petitioners for quashing
of FIR No.32/2021, registered at Police Station Nokh, District
Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and
120-B IPC in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Nos.1755/2024 and
8891/2022 and FIR No.33/2021, registered at Police Station Nokh,
District Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B IPC in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Nos.8913/2022
and 1749/2024.
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 06:39:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6240] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-1755/2024]
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
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 06:39:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6240] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-1755/2024]
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 petitioners can be quashed
while exercising powers under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of
CrPC).
Accordingly, these criminal misc. petitions are allowed.
The FIR No.32/2021, registered at Police Station Nokh,
District Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 and 120-B IPC in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
Nos.1755/2024 and 8891/2022 and FIR No.33/2021,
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 06:39:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6240] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-1755/2024]
registered at Police Station Nokh, District Jaisalmer for the
offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC
in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Nos.8913/2022 and
1749/2024 and all subsequent criminal proceedings sought
to be taken thereunder against the petitioners are hereby
quashed.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
229-332-deep/-
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 06:39:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
