[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hardev Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14404) on 27 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:14404]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2359/2026
1. Hardev Singh S/o Sadhu Singh, Aged About 80 Years, R/o
6 Fdm, 3 Fdm, Sri Ganganagar.
2. Lal Chand S/o Shri Dungar Ram, Aged About 75 Years, R/
o 1 Rm, Rampura Neola, Sri Ganganagar
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2. Thakar Ram S/o Budh Ram Meghwal, R/o Rampura Neola,
P.s. Suratgarh Sadar, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aashish Jakhar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. PK Bhati, PP
Mr. Madan Beniwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
27/03/2026
The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the
petitioners under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 (section 482 Cr.P.C)
seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No.135/2025, registered at Police
Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, for offences punishable
under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 338, 339, 340(2) and 61(2) of the
BNS.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the
matter has been settled amicably.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 does not dispute
the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties.
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 07:30:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14404] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2359/2026]
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
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 07:30:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14404] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2359/2026]
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."
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 petitioners can be quashed while exercising
powers under Section 528 BNSS.
Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The F.I.R.
No.135/2025, registered at Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar against the petitioner for the offences under Sections
318(4), 336(2), 338, 339, 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS and all
other subsequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are
hereby quashed and set aside.
All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
41-Jatin/-
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 07:30:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
