Prem Nath vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13890)
2026 Latest Caselaw 4478 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 4478 Raj
Judgement Date : 24 March, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Prem Nath vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13890) on 24 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:13890]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1909/2026

1.       Prem Nath S/o Jani Nath, Aged About 43 Years, Nathon Ki
         Dhani , Village Kelan , Tehsil Chhatargarh , District
         Bikaner
2.       Laxman Nath S/o Jani Nath, Aged About 38 Years, Natho
         Ki Dhani , Village Kelan, Tehsil Chhattargarh , District
         Bikaner
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Liyakat Ali S/o Nisar Khan, Village Kela, P.s. Chattargarh,
         District Bikaner Raj..
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Jatin Khatri
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP
                                Mr. Danish Sherani for
                                Mr. Salman Agha



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

24/03/2026

The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of

BNSS has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the

FIR No.242/2025, registered at Police Station Chattargarh, District

Bikaner, for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 324(3),

324(4), 307, 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of BNS.

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that the parties

have settled their disputes and have arrived at a compromise. It is

also stated that there was a cross FIR and the FIR registered by

the petitioner being FIR No.241/2025 has already been quashed

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 07:27:20 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13890] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1909/2026]

by this Court on the basis of compromise in CRLMP No.8818/2025

on 13.01.2026.

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 24/03/2026 at 07:27:20 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13890] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1909/2026]

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

(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.242/2025, registered at Police Station

Chattargarh, District Bikaner, for the offence under Sections