Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sanjay Vaishnav vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28994) on 4 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28994]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4862/2025
Sanjay Vaishnav S/o Shri Babu Das, Aged About 50 Years, R/0
213-214, Bhawani Nagar, Old Housing Board, Behind Krishi
Mandi, Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Smt Savita Spouse/o Shri Jayaram, R/o Ambedkar Hostel,
Bapu Nagar, Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP
Mr. Kshitij Vyas (Respondent No.2)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
04/07/2025
By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under
Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that the present criminal misc.
petition filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita my kindly be allowed and the impugned
FIR dated 03.05.2025 bearing no. 250/2025 registered at
Police Station Kotwali Pali, Disrtict Pali may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
Any other appropriate order or direction which this
Hon’ble Court deems fit just and proper may kindly be
passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and he
had played no role whatsoever in commission of the alleged crime.
Learned counsel further submits that a compromise has been
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 09:19:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28994] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4862/2025]
arrived at between the parties and therefore, there is no
possibility of the petitioner getting convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 75(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)
(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. It is also argued that no fruitful
purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings
against the petitioner even after the compromise between the
parties as the same may prejudice the rights of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant concurs with the fact
that the compromise has been arrived between the parties. He
has no objection, in case, the impugned FIR and the entire
criminal proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed and set aside
on the basis of compromise.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a bare perusal of
the factual report would indicate that the offences under Sections
75(2) BNS and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(6) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
Act have found to be prima facie proved against the petitioner
and, therefore, it is not a fit case where the impugned FIR should
be quashed and criminal proceeding be set-aside on the basis of
compromise between the parties.
5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner 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
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 09:19:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28994] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4862/2025]
06.04.2022 was also pleased to quash and set aside the FIR
lodged against the petitioner 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
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(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 09:19:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28994] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4862/2025]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 petitioner and the complainant-
respondent No.2 have settled their dispute amicably, there is no
possibility of the accused-petitioner 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 petitioner pending. Thus, keeping in view the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gian
Singh and Prashant Bhartiya (supra), this Court is inclined to
quashed and set aside the FIR No.250/2025, registered at Police
Station Kotwali Pali, District Pali and the entire criminal
proceedings pursuant thereto for the offences under Section 75(2)
of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
Act qua the petitioner.
9. Consequently, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed.
The impugned FIR No.250/2025, registered at Police Station
Kotwali Pali, District Pali for the offences under Sections 75(2) of
BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 09:19:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28994] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4862/2025]
the entire criminal proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed and
set aside qua the petitioner.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
158-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 09:19:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)