Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ramkunwar Alias Ramvilas vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11585)
2026 Latest Caselaw 3637 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3637 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2026

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramkunwar Alias Ramvilas vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11585) on 10 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:11585]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1821/2026

1.       Ramkunwar Alias Ramvilas S/o Shri Premsukh, Aged
         About 33 Years, Resident Of Jajdon Ki Dhani, Tankla, Ps
         Khinvsar, District Nagaur
2.       Surendra    S/o       Ramchandra,         Aged          About   31   Years,
         Resident Of Village Kharnal, Ps Sadar Nagaur, District
         Nagaur
3.       Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Sahdev Ram, Aged About 29
         Years, Resident Of Village Kharnal, Ps Sadar Nagaur,
         District Nagaur
                                                                     ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Munna Ram S/o Late Shri Pratap Ram, Resident Of Village
         Ahmadpura, Ps Khinvsar, District Nagaur
3.       Bhera Ram S/o Kalla Ram, Village Ratdiya, P.s. Phalsund,
         District Jaisalmer
4.       Ramniwas S/o Late Shri Pratap Ram, Resident Of Village
         Ahmedpura, Ps Khinvsar, District Nagaur
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
                                Mr. Jagdish Bhadu, for complainant



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

10/03/2026 This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS

has been filed for quashing of proceedings pending before the

court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.01, District Nagaur

in Sessions Case No.104/2019 (arising out of FIR No.16/2018

registered at Police Station Khinvsar, District Nagaur for the

(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 03:58:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11585] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1821/2026]

offence under Sections 307, 323, 325/34 of IPC and Section 3/25

of Arms Act), titled as "State Vs. Ram Kumar @ Ramvilas & Ors."

whereby the learned trial court vide order dated 17.02.2026

has attested the compromise under Sections 323 and 325 IPC.

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

(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 03:58:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11585] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1821/2026]

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 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."

(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 03:58:15 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11585] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1821/2026]

Keeping in view the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Gian Singh's case (supra) this Court is of the opinion

that it is a fit case, wherein criminal proceedings pending against

the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under

Section 528 of BNSS.

Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed; the

criminal proceedings pending before the court of learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.01, District Nagaur in Sessions Case

No.104/2019 (arising out of FIR No.16/2018 registered at Police

Station Khinvsar, District Nagaur for the offence under Sections

307, 323, 325/34 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act), titled as

"State Vs. Ram Kumar @ Ramvilas & Ors.", are hereby quashed.

Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stands

disposed of accordingly.

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J 235-Sanjay/-

(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 03:58:15 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter