[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shivendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8436) on 13 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8436]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1342/2026
Shivendra Singh S/o Gurmail Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of
House No 49, Sector No 11A, Hanumangarh Junction, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Pp
2. Ritu Bala W/o Sheviendra Singh, D/o Rajpal, Resident Of Ward
No 17, Dhillo Colony, Hanumangarh Junction, District
Hanumangarh , Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Devasi, PP
Mr. Ramdev
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
13/02/2026
The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of
BNSS has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of
proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No.122/2024 pending before
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, District Hanumangarh for the
offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the
present matter, the police after thorough investigation has filed
challan before the competent court, however, thereafter the
parties have settled their dispute amicably and have arrived at a
compromise. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent
No.2-wife of the petitioner has already withdrawn the proceedings
which were initiated by her under the Domestic Violence Act in the
National Lok Adalat, Hanumangarh vide order dated 13.09.2025.
He submits that in view of the same, FIR as well as entire
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 06:50:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8436] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1342/2026]
proceedings in pursuance thereto may be quashed and set aside.
The original agreement has been placed on record.
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 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
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 06:50:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8436] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1342/2026]
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 of BNSS.
Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The
proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No.122/2024 pending before
the Court of Judicial Magistrate, District Hanumangarh for the
offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC, arising out of
FIR No.0137/2024, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana
(Hanumangarh), District Hanumangarh and all subsequent
criminal proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the
petitioner are hereby quashed.
Stay petition and all pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
214-deep/-
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 06:50:08 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
