Manveer Singh Panwar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:7090)
2026 Latest Caselaw 1968 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1968 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2026

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Manveer Singh Panwar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:7090) on 9 February, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:7090]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 386/2026

Manveer Singh Panwar S/o Govind Singh Panwar, Aged About 23
Years, 17 Laxmi Vilas Samta Vihar Titardi Tehsil Girwa District
Udaipur Rajasthan
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Nishant Sharma S/o Pramod Sharma, R/o 3-4 Syphon
         Colony Girwa District Udaipur
3.       Himanshu Choudhary S/o Pushkar Raj Singh, 67 Opposite
         Power House Gas Godown Road Tehsil Girwa District
         Udaipur
4.       Aman Asnani S/o Suresh Asnani, 108 B Shakti Nagar
         Near Community Hall Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur
5.       Pankar Rabari S/o Dhanraj Rebari, Hemta Ji Ki Dhani
         Gandhi District Udaipur
6.       Parag Sharma S/o Naveen Sharma, 331/10 Ashok Nagar
         Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur
7.       Ravi Khateek S/o Devi Lal Khateek, 409 Kalka Mata Road
         Ganesh Nagar Payda Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur
8.       Pranav Choudhary S/o Dal Chand, 45 Shiv Mandir Gali
         Kakrva Tehsil Kapasan District Chittorgarh
9.       Jaideep Singh Bheemawat S/o Shri Bharat Singh
         Bheemawat, 54 Rto Office Shyam Vihar Girwa District
         Udaipur
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Dilip Vidoya for Mr. Ram Singh
                                   Rawal
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Pawan Kumar, PP
                                   Ms. Geeta Pampaliya, for complainant


      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order 09/02/2026 The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of

BNSS has been filed by petitioner for quashing the proceedings

pending before the court of learned Special Judge (NDPS Act

Cases), Additional Sessions Judge No.01, Udaipur in Criminal

Regular Case No.1287/2020 titled as "State Vs. Nishant Sharma

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 11:10:19 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7090] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-386/2026]

& Ors." (arising out of FIR No.81/2019, P.S. Mahila Ghantaghar,

District Udaipur), whereby the learned Special Judge vide order

dated 01.01.2026 has attested the compromise under Sections

341/149, 328/149, 325/149 IPC, however, refused to attest the

compromise to the extent of offence under Section 147 & 308 IPC,

as the same being non-compoundable.

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 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

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 11:10:19 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7090] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-386/2026]

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 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

(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 11:10:19 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:7090] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-386/2026]

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 criminal proceedings pending

against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers

under Section 528 of BNSS.

Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed; the

criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before court of

learned Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Additional Sessions

Judge No.01, Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.1287/2020

titled as "State Vs. Nishant Sharma & Ors." (arising out of FIR

No.81/2019, P.S. Mahila Ghantaghar, District Udaipur), are hereby

quashed.