Tuesday, 12, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ggj Solutions Pvt Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6875)
2026 Latest Caselaw 1871 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1871 Raj
Judgement Date : 6 February, 2026

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ggj Solutions Pvt Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6875) on 6 February, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:6875]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9677/2025

1.       Ggj Solutions Pvt Ltd, 35 Ground Floor Sheetal Unique
         Chsl Near Ganapati Mandir Sheetal Nagar Mira Road
         Thane Maharashtra
2.       Baidya Nath Goshwami S/o Lt Sh Kirpal Singh, Aged
         About 47 Years, 35 Ground Floor Sheetal Unique Chsl
         Near Ganapati Mandir Sheetal Nagar Mira Road Thane
         Maharashtra And Resident 1820 Third Floor Gali Number
         9 Govindpuri Extn Kalkaji Near Govt School Delhi
3.       Sanjay Sinha S/o Lt Sh Ramesh Chandra Prasad, Aged
         About 58 Years, Ea 35 Inderpuri Ramesh Veena Bhawan
         Iari So Delhi
4.       Soniya Sanjay Sinha W/o Sh Sanjay Sinha, Aged About
         47 Years, Ea 35 Inderpuri Ramesh Veena Bhawan Iari So
         Delhi
                                                                     ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2.       Ms         Raja        Brothers,           Acting         Through       Its
         Proprietor/authorized           Representative            I.E.   Ms   Renu
         Agarwal W/o Yogendra Goyal Having Office At Agrwal
         Dharam Sala Ke Pas Chawni Sheoganj Sirohi Rajasthan
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Ms. Achala Ram
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
                                  Mr. Suprabh Mehta for
                                  Mr. Mahip Singh



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

06/02/2026 The matter comes up on an application (I.A. No. 01/2026)

seeking early hearing of the case.

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:28:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6875] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-9677/2025]

For the reasons stated in the aforesaid application, the same is

allowed, and the matter is taken up for hearing and is being

decided today itself.

The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by

the petitioners under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking

quashing of FIR No. 201/2023 registered at Police Station

Sheoganj (Erinpura), District Sirohi, for offences punishable under

Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a

compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the

matter has been settled amicably.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 does not dispute the

factum of the 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(2012) 10 SCC 303 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

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:28:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6875] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-9677/2025]

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 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 482 Cr.P.C.

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:28:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6875] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-9677/2025]

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The F.I.R.

201/2023, registered at Police Station Sheoganj (Erinpura),

District Sirohi, for offences punishable under Sections

420/406/120-B of Indian Penal Code and all other subsequent

proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are hereby quashed

and set aside.

All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J 21-nishantk/-

(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 12:28:42 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter