[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Neeru vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8574) on 16 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8574]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 10440/2025
1. Neeru W/o Shri Dinesh Gameti Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Talaiya, Police Station Bicchiwada, District
Dungarpur.
2. Smt Ramila W/o Shri Ramesh Baranda Meena, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o Gada Mauraya, Police Station Sadar,
District Dungarpur.
3. Sanjay S/o Shri Narayan Lal Koted, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Bhilvata (Surpur) Police Station Sadar, District
Dungarpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt Maya W/o Late Shri Raju Mochi, R/o Mochivada,
Police Station Kotwali, District Dungarpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Narendra Rajpurohit, 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 of the proceedings pending
against the petitioner before the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Dungarpur in Criminal Regular Case No.597/2022
(arising out of FIR No.101/2021 registered at Police Station
Kotwali Dungarpur, District Dungarpur) titled as "State Vs. Neeru
& Ors.", whereby the learned trial court vide order dated
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 12:34:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8574] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-10440/2025]
19.01.2026 has refused to attest the compromise for offences
under Section 363, 365, 368, 120-B 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.
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
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 12:34:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8574] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-10440/2025]
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 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 17/02/2026 at 12:34:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8574] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-10440/2025]
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, Dungarpur in Criminal
Regular Case No.597/2022 (arising out of FIR No.101/2021
registered at Police Station Kotwali Dungarpur, District Dungarpur)
titled as "State Vs. Neeru & Ors.", are hereby quashed.
Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stands
disposed of accordingly.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
52-Sanjay/-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 12:34:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
