Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sapna vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28179) on 1 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28179]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4498/2025
Sapna W/o Devendra, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Pichiyak Tehsil
Bilara District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.
2. Smt Renu Kumari W/o Shri Anda Ram, R/o Kumarho Ka
Bass Pichiyak Tehsil Bilara District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP
Mr. Gautam Bhargav for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
01/07/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, the
petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the petition of
the petition may kindly be allowed and Criminal Case No.
338/2017 State V/s. Sapna pending before Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bilara may kindly be quashed and set
aside”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
complainant – respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR No.56/2015 at
Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur alleging that the petitioner
has filed his nomination for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat
Pichiak on the basis of forged and fabricated mark-sheet of Class-
IXth. After the investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet
against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 193, 196, 199 and 200 of the IPC.
(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:42:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28179] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4498/2025]
Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of
trial, an application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner as
well as the respondent No.2 before the learned trial Court stating
inter-alia that both the parties have entered into a compromise
and therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner may
be terminated.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial
Court vide the impugned order, rejected the application so filed on
behalf of the parties on the ground that offences alleged to have
been committed by the petitioner under Sections 467, 468, 474,
193, 196, 199 and 200 of the IPC are not compoundable.
4. The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the
petitioner for quashing the said proceedings against him.
5. Learned counsel further contended that the controversy
involved in the present case has already been set to raised by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dhapu Devi
versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.313/2022) decided on 25.01.2022, wherein the
co-ordinate Bench has set aside the proceedings against the
accused, who contested election of Sarpanch on the basis of
forged and fabricated mark-sheet of Class-IXth on the ground of
compromise between the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – complainant does
not wants to press the charges against the present petitioner and
he has no objection in case the FIR and proceedings pending
before the learned trial Court are quashed and set aside on the
basis of the compromise between the parties. The Hon’ble Apex
Court while answering a reference in the case of Gian Singh Vs.
(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:42:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28179] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4498/2025]
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 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(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:42:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28179] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4498/2025]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 proceedings”
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case
and looking to the fact that the petitioner and respondent No.2
have entered into compromise and the fact that the complainant
does not wish to further prosecute the petitioner. Thus, in the
opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by
keeping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner.
9. 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 petitioner can be quashed while exercising
powers under Section 528 of BNSS.
10. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the
criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilara are hereby
quashed and set aside.
11. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
21-Dinesh/-
(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:42:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)