[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parasmal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13149) on 18 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:13149]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2020/2026
1. Parasmal S/o Bhopal Ram, Aged About 52 Years,
Jodhpuriya Gate, Sojat City, Sojat District Pali
2. Dhula Ram S/o Ghewarji, Aged About 40 Years,
Jodhpuriya Gate, Sojat City, Sojat District Pali
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Tara Sargara W/o Paras Ram, Inside Of Jodhpuriya
Gate, Sojat City, District Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohan Lal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
Mr. Mahendra Godara
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/03/2026
1. The instant criminal misc. Petition has been filed under
Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal
Case No.76/2016 titled as State v. Parasmal & Ors. arising out of
FIR No.267/2015 registered at Police Station Sojat, District Pali for
the offence under Sections 498A, 406, 323 & 354 IPC.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
dispute in between the parties has been resolved through an
amicable settlement and now there remains no controversy in
between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal
proceedings further. On the basis of compromise, the accused-
petitioner has been acquitted by the trial court for offence under
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:08:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13149] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2020/2026]
Section 406 IPC and trial under Section 498A IPC has been
directed to continue.
3. It is emanating from the order-sheet of Court below that the
compromise has been entered in between the parties and
complainant-respondent is willing if the FIR and the proceedings
are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the
parties. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
complainant-respondent admits the fact of compromise and
submits that he is willing if the FIR and the proceedings are
quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the
parties.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.
5. Heard, perused the material available on record more
particularly the police report, nature of allegation and the
compromise deed executed in between the parties. The parties to
the lis have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to
continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for
quashing of the same. The offence alleged in this matter is non-
compoundable, however Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] has
propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely
personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility
and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of
compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of
justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by
exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that in
such cases, the prosecution becomes the lame prosecution and
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:08:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13149] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2020/2026]
pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and
energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct
restoration of peace. This court is aptly guided by the principles
propounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and feels that whether
dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are
relatives, neighbours or having business relationship and which
does not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a
view to maintain harmonious relationships between the two sides
& for restitution of relationship and with a view to end-up the
dispute in between them permanently, the High Court should
exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all other
subsequent proceedings initiated thereto.
6. Here in this case, both the parties have submitted
compromise before the learned Trial Court, the Trial Court vide its
order dated 28.01.2026 verified the fact of compromise and thus,
compounded the offence under Section 406 IPC. Since the offence
under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable, therefore,
proceeding has been kept pending for the said offence. Though,
the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is
essentially in between the parties which is not affecting public
peace and tranquility therefore with a view to maintain the
harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties,
it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR and all further
proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.
7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR
mentioned above, and all further proceedings including the
proceedings pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:08:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13149] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2020/2026]
Magistrate, Sojat District Pali in Criminal Case No.76/2016 titled
as State v. Parasmal & Ors. are hereby quashed and set aside.
8. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
201-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 03:08:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
