Mohni Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8581)
2026 Latest Caselaw 2455 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2455 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mohni Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8581) on 16 February, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:8581]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1296/2026

Mohni Kumari W/o Heera Lal Gameti, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Dingariya, Village Poonawali Police Station Rajnagar , Dist.
Rajsamand.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Bhoora Lal S/o Lakshmi Chand Dave, Aged About 72
         Years, R/o Poonawali Police Station Rajnagar , Dist.
         Rajsamand.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Lokendra Singh Chundawat
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
                                Mr. Ravindra Singh, for complainant



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

16/02/2026 This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS

has been with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending

against the petitioner before the court of learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Rajsamand in Criminal Regular Case No.1217/2016

(arising out of FIR No.31/2016 registered at Police Station,

Rajnagar, District Sri Ganganagar) titled as "State Vs. Mohini &

Ors.", whereby the learned trial court vide order dated 03.11.2025

has attested the compromise under Sections 406, 120-B IPC,

however, refused to attest the compromise to the extent of

offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC, as being non-

compoundable.

(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 12:40:19 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8581] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1296/2026]

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 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

(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 12:40:19 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8581] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1296/2026]

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

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand in Criminal

Regular Case No.1217/2016 (arising out of FIR No.31/2016

registered at Police Station, Rajnagar, District Sri Ganganagar)

titled as "State Vs. Mohini & Ors.", are hereby quashed.

(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 12:40:19 PM)