Dhan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2026 Latest Caselaw 2677 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2677 Raj
Judgement Date : 18 February, 2026

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dhan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 February, 2026

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1348/2026
1.        Dhan Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
          Ranjitgarh Raisar Shergarh Jodhpur Raj.
2.        Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Kapooraram, Aged About 25
          Years, R/o Dedachak Lawaran Chamu Jodhpur Raj.
3.        Gopal Singh S/o Shri Chandraveer Singh, Aged About 23
          Years, R/o Veeramdev Garh Setrawa Dechu Phalodi Raj.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.        Suresh S/o Shri Telaram, R/o Ranjitgarh Raisar Shergarh
          Jodhpur Raj.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. JS Bhati
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP
                                Mr. Pradeep Singh Chouhan for
                                complainant


     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

18/02/2026

The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the

petitioners under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 (section 482 Cr.P.C)

seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No.213/2025, registered at Police

Station Shergarh, District Jodhpur, for offences punishable under

Sections 115(2), 126(2), 110, 3(5), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va)

of BNS.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted 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.

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 05:09:40 PM)

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1348/2026]

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 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

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 05:09:40 PM)

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1348/2026]

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 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The F.I.R.

No.213/2025, registered at Police Station Shergarh, District

Jodhpur against the petitioner for the offences under Sections

115(2), 126(2), 110, 3(5), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of BNS.

and all other subsequent proceedings sought to be taken

thereunder are hereby quashed and set aside.

All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

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