Dinesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13895)
2026 Latest Caselaw 4438 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 4438 Raj
Judgement Date : 24 March, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dinesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13895) on 24 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:13895]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1329/2023

1.       Dinesh S/o Sh. Ganesh Lal Mali, Aged About 34 Years, R/
         o Shrinath Colony-S, Opp. Private Bus Stand, Nathdwara,
         Dist. Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
2.       Pramod S/o Sh. Mohan Joshi, Aged About 26 Years,
         Joshiyon      Ki    Madri,       Bagol,       Teh.         Nathdwara,    Dist.
         Rajsamand, Rajasthan..
3.       Shekhar Lal S/o Sh. Tola Ram Paliwal, Aged About 32
         Years,      Brahampuri,        Joshiyon        Ki    Madri,     Bagol,   Teh.
         Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand, Raj.
                                                                        ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Sh. Vijendra Singh S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh Rajput, Aged
         About 27 Years, R/o Unthnol, Teh. Nathdwara, Dist.
         Rajsamand, Raj.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot
                                   Ms. Vandana Prajapati
                                   Mr. Dinesh
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
                                   Mr. Vishal Raj Mehta



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

24/03/2026 The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section

528 of the BNSS has been filed by the petitioners seeking

quashing of FIR No. 121/2023, registered at Police Station

Nathdwara, District Rajsamand, for the offence under Section 384

of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have

settled their disputes and have arrived at a compromise. Learned

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 07:27:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13895] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1329/2023]

counsel for the petitioners further submits that, during the

pendency of the present criminal miscellaneous petition, a challan

has already been filed against the petitioners for the offence under

Section 384 of the IPC on 11.11.2024. It is submitted that no

further proceedings have been initiated thereafter, and in the

prayer clause of the miscellaneous petition, a prayer has already

been made for quashing of the charge-sheet, if any, filed.

It is further submitted that the parties have entered into a

compromise dated 18.03.2026, which has been placed on record

by way of the present petition, wherein it is stated that both the

parties have amicably settled the dispute and the complainant

does not wish to continue further proceedings in the FIR.

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

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 07:27:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13895] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1329/2023]

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."

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 petitioners.

In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties

and applying the ratio laid down in the decision of Gian Singh

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 07:27:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13895] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1329/2023]

(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