[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Padmini Raneja vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13948) on 24 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13948]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2216/2026
1. Padmini Raneja D/o Gopal Raneja, Aged About 20 Years,
Esident Of 21/294, Chopasani Housing Board Nandanwan
Jodhpur, Rajasthan
2. Yuvraj Singh S/o Jaswant Singh, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident Of Bagoriya, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Vijay Raj S/o Rawata Ram, Aged About 52 Years, Resident
Of Kojaniyo Ki Dhani,bhalni, Bagora, District Jalore,
Presently Residing At 507,ashapurna City, Boranada,
District Jodhpur City West, Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kamakshi Joshi for
Mr. Dhan Raj Vaishnav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
24/03/2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 331(3)
and 305(a) of BNS. Subsequent thereto, both the parties have
entered into compromise and settled their dispute amicably and
the same was filed before the learned trial Court. However, qua
offence under Section 331(3) & 305(a) of BNS, the same being
non-compoundable, no order was passed. Hence, the present
misc. petition.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:29:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13948] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2216/2026]
The petitioner has placed on record certified copies of the
orders passed by the learned trial Court.
Learned counsel for the complainant 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
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
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:29:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13948] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2216/2026]
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
pending against the petitioner can be quashed while exercising
powers under Section 528 of BNSS.
Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the
compromise qua offence under Section 331(3) & 305(a) of BNS is
accepted and the entire proceedings in connection with Criminal
Case N.C.V. No.33569/2025 pending before the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate No.8, Jodhpur Metro, District Jodhpur against
the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside.
All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
108-Hanuman/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 06:29:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
