[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shailendra Chouhan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8389) on 13 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8389]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1264/2026
Shailendra Chouhan S/o Shri Amba Lal Chouhan, Aged About 65
Years, R/o-1 Gulabeshwar Marg, Khatikwada, Hathipole, Udaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Manju Solanki D/o Shri Lalit Kumar Solanki, R/o- 38/803,
University Road, Bekni Puliya, North Ayad, Udaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammad Akbar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Sikander Khan, for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
13/02/2026
This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS
has been with the prayer for quashing proceedings pending
against the petitioner before the court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate North No.1, Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case
No.9732/2017 (arising out of FIR No.89/2017 registered at Police
Station Dhanmandi, District Udaipur for the offence under Section
384 IPC) as "State Vs. Manju Solanki", whereby the learned trial
court vide order dated 30.01.2026 refused to attest the
compromise to the extent of offence under Section 389 IPC, as
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.
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:10:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8389] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1264/2026]
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
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:10:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8389] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1264/2026]
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 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
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:10:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8389] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1264/2026]
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 the
court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate North No.1,
Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.9732/2017 (arising out of FIR
No.89/2017 registered at Police Station Dhanmandi, District
Udaipur for the offence under Section 384 IPC) as "State Vs.
Manju Solanki", are hereby quashed.
Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stands
disposed of accordingly.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
141-Sanjay/-
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:10:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
