Urn: Crlmp / 6155U / 2026Tarun Dangi vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20671)
2026 Latest Caselaw 7132 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 7132 Raj
Judgement Date : 1 May, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Urn: Crlmp / 6155U / 2026Tarun Dangi vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20671) on 1 May, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:20671]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3439/2026

1.       Tarun Dangi S/o Shri Ruplal Ji Dangi, Aged About 25
         Years, Resident Of Behind Kailash Printer, Bhuwana, Tehsil
         Badgaon, District Udaipur Raj.
2.       Dinesh Soni S/o Shri Shankar Lal Ji Soni, Aged About 27
         Years, Resident Of Mallatlai, Sajjan Nagar, A-Block, Tehsil
         Girva, District Udaipur, Raj.
3.       Vijay Singh Alias Vinsa S/o Shri Chandan Singh Ji, Aged
         About       28    Years,      Resident       Of     Jhidoli,   Rama,    Tehsil
         Badgaon, District Udaipur Raj.
                                                                        ----Petitioners
                                         Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
2.       Narendra Gameti S/o Shri Ratan Lal Ji Gameti, Resident
         Of Arpit Colony, Village Badi, Tehsil Badgaon, District
         Udaipur Raj.
3.       Sanjay Nath S/o Shri Kishan Nath, Resident Of Magra
         Basti, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur Raj.
4.       Mahendra Gameti S/o Shri Pura Ji Gameti, Resident Of
         Madarda, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur Raj.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
                                     Mr. Digvijay Shekhawat for
                                     respondent Nos.2 to 4



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

01/05/2026

1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed under

Section 528, BNSS, 2023, for quashing of FIR No.68/2026 dated

14.04.2026 lodged at Police Station Badgaon, District Udaipur for

the offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 127(2) and 308(2) of

(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 10:39:53 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20671] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3439/2026]

the BNS,2023 and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after lodging

of the FIR in question, the parties have entered into compromise

and a copy of the compromise dated 22.04.2026 which has been

appended with the petition.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that

the FIR came to be lodged due to some misunderstanding

between the parties. The incident as alleged in the FIR did not

occur. Learned counsel concurs with the factum of compromise

and submits that in view of the compromise, the complainant is

not inclined to further prosecute the petitioners.

4. 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

(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 10:39:53 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20671] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3439/2026]

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 predominatingly 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."

5. Learned counsel therefore, submits that proceedings initiated

in pursuance of the FIR in question may be quashed.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor do not dispute the submission

made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is

allowed. The FIR No.68/2026 dated 14.04.2026 lodged at Police

Station Badgaon, District Udaipur for the offences under Sections

189(2), 115(2), 127(2) and 308(2) of the BNS,2023 and Section