Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Dhruv Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8749)
2026 Latest Caselaw 2582 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2582 Raj
Judgement Date : 17 February, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dhruv Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8749) on 17 February, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:8749]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1340/2026

1.       Dhruv Rajpurohit S/o Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit, Aged
         About 19 Years, R/o 246, Society Nagar, Pali Raj.
2.       Akash Puri S/o Madan Puri, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
         219, Mohan Nagar, Punayata Road Pali.
3.       Ankit Puri S/o Mahendra Puri Goswami, Aged About 19
         Years, R/o 139, Janta Colony, Pali, Rajasthan
4.       Jitendra Jangid S/o Jagdish Jangid, Aged About 19 Years,
         R/o Radawas, Marwar Junction, Distract Pali, Rajasthan
5.       Deepak Pandey S/o Munna Pandey, Aged About 17 Years,
         R/o 221,a Mohan Nagar Punayata Road, Pali, Rajasthan.
         Through Natural Guardian- Nakul Dave Son Of Suresh,
         Chandra Dave, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 9, Sindhi
         Colony, Pali, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor.
2.       Kuldeep Puniya S/o Praveen Puniya, Aged About 19 Years,
         R/o 41, Bhalawato Ka Baas, Bheru Ghat, Pali, Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Chandan Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Pawan Kumar, PP
                                Mr. Deepak Sarswat &
                                Mr. Deepak Gour, for complainant



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

17/02/2026 The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS

has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.13/2026,

registered at Police Station Transport Nagar (Pali), District Pali for

the offences under Sections 115(2), 119(1), 189(2), 140(3),

(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 11:29:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8749] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1340/2026]

126(2), 308(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)

(VA) of SC/ST Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during

investigation in the matter, compromise has been arrived at

between both the parties and they have settled their dispute

amicably.

A photocopy of compromise-deed dated 27.01.2026 is placed

on record.

Learned counsel for the complainant 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

(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 11:29:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8749] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1340/2026]

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 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 petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under

Section 528 of BNSS.

Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed.

FIR No.13/2026, registered at Police Station Transport Nagar

(Pali), District Pali for the offences under Sections 115(2), 119(1),

189(2), 140(3), 126(2), 308(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)

(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST Act as well as the entire other

(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 11:29:03 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:8749] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1340/2026]

proceedings pending against the petitioners, are hereby quashed

and set aside.

Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stands

disposed of accordingly.

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J 133-Sanjay/-

(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 11:29:03 AM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter