Vijay Pal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11667)
2026 Latest Caselaw 3636 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3636 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vijay Pal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11667) on 10 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:11667]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1731/2026

1.       Vijay Pal S/o Sahi Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of
         Dhirdesar Chotiyan Tehsil Sri Dungargarh District Bikaner
2.       Mangi Lal S/o Balu Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Resident
         Of Dhirdesar Chotiyan Tehsil Sri Dungargarh District
         Bikaner
3.       Surendra S/o Madan Lal, Aged About 22 Years, Resident
         Of Dhirdesar Chotiyan Tehsil Sri Dungargarh District
         Bikaner
4.       Narendra S/o Madan Lal, Aged About 20 Years, Resident
         Of Dhirdesar Chotiyan Tehsil Sri Dungargarh District
         Bikaner
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Jagdish S/o Dalu Ram, Resident Of Likhmadesar Tehsil Sri
         Dungargarh District Bikaner.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Sunil Kumar Fageria
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
                                Mr. Rajesh Kumar Godara, for
                                complainant



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

10/03/2026 The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS

has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.50/2026,

registered at Police Station Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner for the

offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 307, 3(5) BNS.

(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 10:58:53 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11667] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1731/2026]

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) 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 the compromise-deed dated 25.02.2026 is

taken 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

(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 10:58:53 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11667] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1731/2026]

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 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

(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 10:58:53 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11667] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1731/2026]

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."