[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11791) on 12 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:11791]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9977/2025
1. Suja Ram, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Lolava, Gudamalani,
Barmer
2. Thakra Ram S/o Karna Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Lolava, Gudamalani, Barmer
3. Joga Ram S/o Karna Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Lolava, Gudamalani, Barmer
4. Bhoma Ram S/o Girdhari Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Lolava, Gudamalani, Barmer
5. Bhagwana Ram S/o Rama Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Lolava, Gudamalani, Barmer
6. Bhera Ram Alias Shankar S/o Padma Ram, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Lolava, Gudamalani, Barmer
7. Shankar S/o Karna Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Lolava, Gudamalani, Barmer
8. Padma Ram S/o Chimna Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
Lolava, Gudamalani, Barmer
9. Dalu Ram S/o Padma Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Lolava, Gudamalani, Barmer
10. Uka Ram S/o Padma Ram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
Lolava, Gudamalani, Barmer
11. Vana Ram S/o Padma Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Lolava, Gudamalani, Barmer
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Mada Kumari D/o Mula Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Jiwana,sayla, District Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Prakash Chand Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
12/03/2026
The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of
BNSS has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR
No.240/2025, registered at Police Station Sayla, District Jalore, for
the offence under Sections 115(2), 331(2), 109(1) and 189(2) of
the BNS.
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 02:26:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11791] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-9977/2025]
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties
have settled their disputes and have arrived at a compromise.
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,
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
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 02:26:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11791] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-9977/2025]
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."
He, therefore, prayed that the impugned criminal
proceedings may kindly be quashed.
Learned counsel for the complainant concurs with the factum
of compromise and submits that in view of the compromise, the
complainant is not inclined to further prosecute the petitioner.
In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties
and applying the ratio laid down in the decision of Gian Singh
(supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke its inherent
powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.
Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is
allowed. The FIR No. 240/2025 registered at Police Station Sayla,
District Jalore, for the offences under Sections 115(2), 331(2),
109(1) and 189(2) of the BNS, and all subsequent criminal
proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner, are hereby
quashed.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
23-Hanuman/-
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 02:26:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
