Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Hari Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28908) on 4 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28908]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4984/2025
1. Hari Singh S/o Khet Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village Sonu, Hukme Ki Chakki, Tehsil And District
Jaisalmer
2. Chanda W/o Hari Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village
Sonu, Hukme Ki Chakki, Tehsil And District Jaisalmer
3. Bhur Singh S/o Khet Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Sonu, Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer
4. Kastur Kanwar W/o Khet Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Village Sonu, Hukme Ki Chakki, Twhsil And District
Jaisalmer
----petitionerss
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Geeta Devi W/o Late Shri Chanana Ram, R/o Chelak,
Khurchi, Jaisalmer. At Present Residing At Gafur Bhatta,
Kacchi Basti, Jasalmer , Rajasthan
----Respondents
For petitioners(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rawal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh, PP
Mr. Bajrang Singh for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
04/07/2025
By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under
Section 528 BNSS, the petitionerss have prayed for the following
reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed on behalf
of petitionerss that the Cr. Misc. petition may kindly be
allowed and the entire proceeding arising out of FIR
No.29/2025 Of Police Station Mahila Thana, Jaisalmer may
kindly be quashed and set aside.
Any other order which this Hon’ble Court thinks fit
may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.”
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 09:44:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28908] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4984/2025]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case and
they have played no role whatsoever in commission of the alleged
crime. Learned counsel further submits that a compromise has
been arrived at between the parties and therefore, there is no
possibility of the petitioners getting convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 115(2), 64(1), 64(2)(m), 91, 351(2), 69
of BNS.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that after compromise
between the parties, petitioner Bhur Singh and Geeta Devi have
started living together as husband and wife. He submitted that
since petitioner Bhur Singh and Geeta Devi are now living
together, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by
continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners as the
same may prejudice the rights of the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant concurs with the factum
that the petitioner Bhur Singh and Geeta Devi are presently living
together as husband and wife. He has shown no objection in case
the impugned FIR, and the entire criminal proceedings are
quashed and set aside on the basis of the said compromise.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a bare perusal of
the FIR would indicate that the offences under Sections 115(2),
64(1), 64(2)(m), 91, 351(2), 69 of BNS have found to be
prima facie proved against the petitioners and, therefore, it is not
a fit case where the impugned FIR can be quashed and criminal
proceedings be set-aside on the basis of compromise between the
parties.
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 09:44:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28908] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4984/2025]
5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of
“Prashant Bhartiya v. State of Delhi & Ors.” (Criminal
Appeal No.708 of 2021)” decided on 30.07.2021 was pleased to
quash and set aside the FIR wherein the allegations under Section
376 of IPC were levelled against the accused person.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of “Dhabba Nath v. State of Rajasthan &
Anr.” (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.4119/2021) decided on
06.04.2022 was also pleased to quash and set aside the FIR
lodged against the petitioners for the offences punishable under
Section 376 of IPC and Section 67 of I.T. Act on the basis of
compromise between the parties.
7. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of “Gian Singh V. State of
Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 wherein it was
held as under:-
’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 accordance 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(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 09:44:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28908] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4984/2025]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.’
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case
and looking to the fact that the petitioners and the complainant-
respondent No.2 have settled their dispute amicably, there is no
possibility of the accused-petitioners being convicted in the case
pending against him. This Court is of the opinion that no useful
purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings
against the petitioners pending. Thus, keeping in view the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gian
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 09:44:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28908] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4984/2025]
Singh and Prashant Bhartiya (supra), this Court is inclined to
quash and set aside the impugned FIR
9. Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed.
The impugned FIR No.29/2025, registered at Police Station
Kotwali Mahila Thana, District Jaisalmer for the offences under
Sections 115(2), 64(1), 64(2)(m), 91, 351(2), 69 of BNS and the
entire criminal proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed and set
aside qua the petitioners.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
29-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 09:44:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link