[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 February, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 158/2026
Vinod Kumar S/o Ramkumar, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of
Ward No. 09, 13 Bnw Dulrasar,sadulsahar, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj)..
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Achal Singh S/o Sultan Singh, Resident Of Thakrawali 13
Lnp, Chunawadh, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar Raj..
3. Sukhchain S/o Ikbal Singh, Resident Of Mokhamwala, 7
Ksd, Tehsil Raisinghnagar,district Sri Ganganagar. At
Present Resident Of Gali No.6, Indra Colony, Padampur,
District Sri Ganganagar Raj.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7044/2025
Sunil Kumar S/o Emilal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 09,
13 Bnw Dulrasar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Achal Singh S/o Sultan Singh, R/o Thakrawali 13 Lnp,
Chunawadh, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Raj)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar
Mr. Rohit Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Omprakash Chaudhari
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
19/02/2026
The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of
BNSS has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the
FIR No.172/2025, registered at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan,
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:36:53 AM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-158/2026]
District Sri Ganganagar, for the offences under Sections 331(6),
307, 115(2), 126(2) and 3(5) of BNS.
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,
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:36:53 AM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-158/2026]
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, the present misc. petitions are allowed. The FIR
No.172/2025, registered at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan, District
Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 331(6), 307,
115(2), 126(2) and 3(5) of BNS and all subsequent criminal
proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the
petitioners, are hereby quashed.
Stay petition as well as all pending application(s), if any,
stand disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
1-2-rashu/-
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:36:53 AM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-158/2026]
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:36:53 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
