[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhupender Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11657) on 10 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:11657]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1542/2026
1. Bhupender Singh S/o Onkar Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o 421/22 New B.j.s, Jodhpur
2. Usha Sekhawat W/o Onkar Singh, Aged About 50 Years,
421/22 New B.j.s, Jodhpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Anita Kawar W/o Bhupender Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
D/o Dashrath Singh R/o 175/327, Naryan Nagar, Magra
Punjla, P.s. Mandor, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Karwasra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V. S. Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
10/03/2026
The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS
(482 CrPC) has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of
criminal proceedings pending before the court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, Distt. Jodhpur (for short 'the learned trial court') in
Criminal Original Case No.446/2021, arising out of FIR
No.76/2020, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District
Jodhpur City East for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406,
323, 341, 354, 377, 511, 34 and 120-B IPC. The learned trial
court vide order dated 31.07.2025 has attested the compromise
under Sections 406 and 323 IPC, however, refused to attest the
compromise under Section 498-A IPC as the same being non-
compoundable.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 11:30:05 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11657] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1542/2026]
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that compromise
has been arrived at between the parties and they have settled
their disputes amicably. Learned counsel further submits that the
matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court and
thereafter the parties have entered into compromise. Learned
counsel also submits that on basis of the same, all further
subsequent proceedings going on under the Domestic Violence Act
have been settled.
Although, none appeared on behalf of respondent-wife,
however, the fact of compromise entered into between the parties
is not disputed. Further the order passed by the learned trial court
dated 31.07.2025 also clearly reflects that compromise was filed,
upon which, order was passed and the same bears signature of
respondent-wife as well.
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
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 11:30:05 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11657] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1542/2026]
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
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
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 11:30:05 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11657] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1542/2026]
pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising
powers under Section 528 BNSS (482 CrPC).
Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed.
The criminal proceedings pending before the court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Original Case
No.446/2021, arising out of FIR No.76/2020, registered at Police
Station Mahila Thana, District Jodhpur City East for the offences
under Sections 498-A, 341, 354, 377, 511, 34 and 120-B IPC and
all other subsequent criminal proceedings sought to be taken
thereunder against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
112-Hanuman/-
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 11:30:05 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
