[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vipul Kumar Mukhija vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8864) on 17 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8864]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1346/2026
1. Vipul Kumar Mukhija S/o Late Shrawan Kumar, Aged
About 38 Years, Resident Of House No 8/236, Ward No.5,
Housing Board Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh
(Raj)
2. Santosh Bhatiya W/o Late Shrawan Kumar, Aged About
77 Years, Resident Of House No 8/236, Ward No.5,
Housing Board Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh
(Raj)
3. Dipika Pallavi D/o Late Shrawan Kumar, Aged About 34
Years, Resident Of House No 8/236, Ward No.5, Housing
Board Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh (Raj)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Dipika D/o Om Prakash, W/o Vipul Kumar, Resident Of
House No 90, Sector No 12 L, Hanumangarh Junction,
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Bhawani Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
17/02/2026
This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS has
been preferred by the petitioners with the prayer for quashing of
the proceedings pending against the petitioners before the learned
Metropolitan Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (hereinafter
referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Original Case
No.360/2016, whereby the trial court vide order dated 12.02.2024
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 06:41:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8864] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1346/2026]
has attested the compromise under Sections 406 and 323 IPC,
however, refused to attest the compromise under Sections 498-A
and 377 IPC as the same being non-compoundable.
Learned counsel for the petitioners 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
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 06:41:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8864] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1346/2026]
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 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 petitioners can be quashed
while exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS.
Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and
the criminal proceedings pending before the Metropolitan
Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Original Case
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 06:41:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8864] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1346/2026]
No.360/2016 under Sections 498-A and 377 IPC and all
subsequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder
against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
Stay petition and all pending application(s), if any,
stand disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
136-deep/-
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 06:41:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
