[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kailash Kaur vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10541) on 26 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:10541]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1423/2026
Kailash Kaur W/o Gurpreet Singh Raisikh, Aged About 57 Years,
R/o 654 Sector No 07 Harvansh Street Kurushetra Thanesar City
Kurushetra Haryana
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Subhash, R/o Pallu Tehsil Rawatsar Dist Hanumangarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achala Ram
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Narendra Godara
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
26/02/2026
This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS has
been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing of
entire charge-sheet bearing No.01/2020 pertaining to FIR
No.203/2019 registered at Police Station Pallu, District
Hanumangarh under Section 382/24 IPC, qua the petitioner.
The Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh,
vide order dated 01.06.2022, has refused to attest the
compromise arrived at between the parties for the offences under
Sections 382/34 IPC as the same 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.
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:22:52 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10541] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1423/2026]
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
JT2012(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 maybe 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
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:22:52 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10541] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1423/2026]
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
entire charge-sheet bearing No.01/2020 pertaining to FIR
No.203/2019 registered at Police Station Pallu, District
Hanumangarh under Section 382/24 IPC and all subsequent
criminal proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are hereby
quashed qua the petitioner.
Stay petition stands disposed of.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J
99-T.Singh/-
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:22:52 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
