Umardin vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:7185)
2026 Latest Caselaw 1964 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1964 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Umardin vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:7185) on 9 February, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:7185]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 949/2026

Umardin S/o Lt. Sh. Mukhatyar Khan, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident Of Toshina, Ps Khunkhuna, District Didwana Kuchaman,
Nagaur, Raj. (Now Newly Dist. Didwana Kuchaman)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Rajjak Mohammad S/o Lt. Sh. Noor Mohammad, Aged
         About 70 Years, Resident Of Toshina, Ps Khunkhuna, Teh.
         Didwana, Dist. Nagaur, Raj. (Now Newly Dist. Didwana
         Kuchaman)
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Manoj Purohit
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
                                    Mr. Himmat Singh Bhati



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

09/02/2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a

compromise has been arrived at between the parties. The parties

are directed to file the same before the learned Trial Court and to

pursue the matter in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the duly

attested original compromise agreement dated 29.9.2025, which

was perused by the Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel for the

respondent is present and states that he admits the factum of

entering into a compromise.

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.25/2013 dated

19.03.2013, registered at Police Station Khunkhuna, District

(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 06:51:02 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7185] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-949/2026]

Nagaur, for offences under Sections 380 and 414 of the IPC, and

all further proceedings in Case No.92/2013, on the basis of the

compromise deed dated 23.09.2025 arrived at between the

parties.

The complainant had lodged an FIR against the petitioner

and, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency

submitted a final report before the learned Trial Court. The learned

Trial Court examined the final report and took cognizance against

the petitioner under Sections 380 and 451 of the IPC. Vide

judgment/order dated 28.11.2019, the petitioner was convicted

and sentenced. Thereafter, on 16.12.2019, an appeal being

Criminal Appeal No.123/2019 was filed before the learned

Additional District and Sessions Court, Didwana. During the

pendency of the said appeal, the parties, namely the complainant

and the petitioner, entered into a compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter

can be compromised at any stage of the proceedings. Reliance is

placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ramgopal & Anr. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal

Appeal No.1489/2012, decided on 29.09.2021).

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

complainant do not dispute the factum of compromise and have

no objection in view of the aforesaid judgment.

In the case of Ramgopal (ibid), the Apex Court also

considered the judgments rendered in the cases of Gian Singh

Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and State of

(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 06:51:02 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7185] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-949/2026]

Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [(2019) 5 SCC

688]. It is held as under:-

"11. True it is that offences which are 'non- compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.

13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non- heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is

(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 06:51:02 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7185] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-949/2026]

always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab4 and Laxmi Narayan3."

Resultantly, in view of the compromise arrived between the

parties and invoking the inherent powers vested in this Court

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 of BNSS, 2023), the

present misc. petition is allowed. Consequently, all the

proceedings against the petitioner emanating out of the FIR

No.25/2013 Police Station Khunkhuna, District Nagaur and leading

to Case No.92/2013, in which the petitioner was convicted and

Criminal Appeal No.123/2019 pending before the Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Didwana, District Didwana-Kuchaman

convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 380 and

451 IPC are set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to have

been acquitted of the charged offences. The petitioner will be at