Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Pankaj Goyal vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:30239]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4770/2026
CNR: RJHC010590402026
URN: CRLMP / 8607U / 2026
Pankaj Goyal S/o Shri Bhimraj Goyal, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident Of Mata Ka Kund, Outside Chandpole, Police Station
Soorsagar, Jodhpur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Teena Gurjar W/o Shri Pankaj Goyal, D/o Shri Jhumar Lal
Gurjar, Resident Of Near Kamla Provision Store, Outside
Chandpole, Police Station Soorsagar, Jodhpur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramniwas Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP
Mr. Ranjana Ojha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
REPORTABLE
08/07/2026
The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in
Sessions Case No. 14/2021, pending before the Court of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases),
Jodhpur Metropolitan, arising out of FIR No. 202/2020 registered
at Police Station Soorsagar, Jodhpur, for the offences punishable
under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 384, 506 and 450 of the
Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the parties have amicably
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:03:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:41:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30239] (2 of 8) [CRLMP-4770/2026]
resolved their disputes and are presently living together in a
happy and stable matrimonial relationship.
The prosecutrix and the petitioner are present in person
before this Court today. The prosecutrix states that she had
married the petitioner prior to the registration of the FIR.
However, after their marriage, both had returned to their
respective homes, and when her parents came to know about the
marriage, the present FIR was lodged under pressure. Thereafter,
she continued to stay with her parents. It is further stated that in
December 2025, she again eloped with the petitioner.
In these circumstances, having regard to the love and
affection shared between the prosecutrix and the petitioner, the
families of both parties ultimately decided to accept their
relationship and consented to their marriage. Accordingly, since
25.12.2025, both have been residing together as husband and
wife at the petitioner’s residence along with his parents.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial is at an
advanced stage, as almost all the prosecution witnesses, including
the parents of the prosecutrix, have already been examined.
Nevertheless, it is not disputed that the parties are presently
residing together as husband and wife.
The counsel for the respondent also does not dispute the
present petition and admits that the matter now stands settled
and both the parties are living together.
The facts reveal that the parties had, in fact, married way
back in the year 2020. However, owing to the pressure exerted by
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:03:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:41:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30239] (3 of 8) [CRLMP-4770/2026]
their families, the present criminal proceedings continued. At the
time of their marriage in 2020, both parties were major. The
prosecutrix was about 20 years of age at that time and, is now 26
years old. Despite the passage of all these years, their relationship
endured, and their love failed to die, ultimately they were united
in December 2025. They are now residing together as husband
and wife.
The entire sequence of events reveals that the criminal
proceedings were initiated as a consequence of family pressure.
Although the trial has reached an advanced stage, the relationship
between the parties has, since its inception, been consensual and
has endured for over six years. Despite the pendency of the
criminal proceedings and the circumstances surrounding the case,
the prosecutrix and the petitioner have chosen to continue living
together as husband and wife.
The Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant
Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi & Ors.(Criminal appeal
no.708/2021), has held that even in offences of serious nature,
if the parties have settled the dispute and continuation of
proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the FIR can be
quashed. The relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder:
“3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint
alleging, inter alia, that the Appellant had committed an
offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It
is undisputed that both the Accused (Appellant) and
Respondent No. 2 were living together for a
considerable while. The complainant’s allegation is that
the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that
He is divorced. The complainant, according to the
accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.
4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were
referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:03:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:41:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30239] (4 of 8) [CRLMP-4770/2026]child was born in the meanwhile(i.e. in the year 2018).
As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the
maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by
them.
5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions
made on behalf of the complainant -who does not
dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for
pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the
considered view that the criminal proceedings must be
quashed.
6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case,
the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside;
the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be
quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will
not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the
contentions of the parties in any other pending
proceedings, which shall 20-09-2022 be decided in
accordance with law
7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhukar & Ors. vs. State
of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 INSC 819, has observed that
although offences under Section 64 of the BNS (corresponding to
Section 376 IPC) are undoubtedly grave in nature and ordinarily
ought not to be quashed on the basis of compromise, the inherent
powers of the Court to secure the ends of justice are not
constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised in the facts
and circumstances of each case. The relevant portion is quoted
herein-under:-
“6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence
under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and
heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings
involving such offences on the ground of settlement
between the parties is discouraged and should not be
permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court
under Section482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is
not constrained by a rigid formula and must be
exercised with reference to the facts of each case.
7. In the present matter, we are confronted
withan unusual situation where the FIR invoking
serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed
immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the
opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain
context to the allegations and suggests that the second
FIR may have been are actionary step. More(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:03:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:41:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30239] (5 of 8) [CRLMP-4770/2026]importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has
unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the
case. She has submitted that she is now married,
settled in her personal life, and continuing with the
criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and
stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous,
she has consistently maintained, including through an
affidavit on record, that she does not support the
prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties
have also amicably resolved their differences and
arrived at a mutual understanding. In these
circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not
serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong
distress for all concerned, especially the complainant,
and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a
productive outcome.
8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, and taking into account the
categorical stand taken by the complainant and the
nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the
continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve
no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of
process.”(emphasis supplied)The learned counsel has
also relied upon the order of the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Om Prakash vs. State of
Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2736/2023),
wherein the FIR under Section 376 IPC was quashed
on the basis of a compromise between the parties.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Mukund Patel v.
State of U.P., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614, while
dealing with allegations under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC as
well as Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, noticed that the
accused and the prosecutrix had subsequently solemnized
marriage and were residing together happily. The Hon’ble Apex
Court observed that continuation of the criminal proceedings in
such circumstances would serve no useful purpose and would only
result in unnecessary harassment to the accused, the prosecutrix
and their children. It was further observed that such a case
warranted exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
for quashing the criminal proceedings. The relevant portion is
quoted herein-under:-
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:03:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:41:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30239] (6 of 8) [CRLMP-4770/2026]
5.”…..The complainant in the 2nd FIR, now married
and residing with her husband, has expressed that
continuation of the prosecution would cause further
disruption in her personal life and that she has no
wish to support the charges or pursue the matter any
further.
6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under
Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous
nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving
such offences on the ground of settlement between
the parties is discouraged and should not be
permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court
under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice
is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be
exercised with reference to the facts of each case.
7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an
unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious
charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed
immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the
opposing side. This sequence of events lends a
certain context to the allegations and suggests that
the second FIR may have been a reactionary step.
More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR
has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue
the case. She has submitted that she is now married,
settled in her personal life, and continuing with the
criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace
and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor
ambiguous, she has consistently maintained,
including through an affidavit on record, that she
does not support the prosecution and wants the
matter to end. The parties have also amicably
resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual
understanding. In these circumstances, the
continuation of the trial would not serve any
meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress
for all concerned, especially the complainant, and
burden the Courts without the likelihood of a
productive outcome.
8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, and taking into account
the categorical stand taken by the complainant and
the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion
that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings would serve no useful purpose and
would only amount to abuse of process.
9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The
impugned order of the High Court dated 07.03.2025
is set aside. FIR No. 302 of 2023 and FIR No. 304 of
2023, along with all proceedings arising therefrom,
including Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024, stand
quashed.
10. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.”
The present case stands on an equally peculiar footing. The
prosecutrix has categorically stated before this Court that she had
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:03:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:41:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30239] (7 of 8) [CRLMP-4770/2026]
voluntarily married the petitioner in the year 2020, that the FIR
came to be lodged owing to pressure exerted by her family
members and that she is presently residing with the petitioner as
his wife with the acceptance of both families. She has expressed
her desire to continue her matrimonial life with the petitioner and
has no grievance against him. The relationship between the
parties has survived the passage of almost six years dispute and
pendency of the criminal proceedings. Rather than being
estranged by the litigation, they have reunited and are presently
living together as husband and wife.
Having voluntarily chosen to live together long ago, and
having reunited despite the intervening litigation, this Court is of
the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by
allowing the criminal proceedings to continue merely because the
trial has reached an advanced stage.
This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the continuation of the
present criminal proceedings would neither sub serve the cause of
justice nor achieve the object of criminal law. On the contrary,
permitting the prosecution to continue despite the unequivocal
stand of the prosecutrix would only result in unnecessary hardship
to both parties and jeopardize the settled matrimonial life which
they have consciously chosen to lead. The peculiar facts of the
present case, therefore, warrant exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court to secure the ends of justice.
This Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:03:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:41:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30239] (8 of 8) [CRLMP-4770/2026]
2023, deems it appropriate to put an end to the present litigation,
which has now become wholly futile. Continuation of the
proceedings, and any eventual conviction of the petitioner, would
serve no meaningful purpose and would only amount to abuse of
process.
Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is
allowed.The entire criminal proceedings in Sessions Case No.
14/2021 pending before the Court of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan,
arising out of FIR No. 202/2020 registered at Police Station
Soorsagar, Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 376, 376(2)
(n), 377, 384, 506 and 450 of the Indian Penal Code, along with
all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby
quashed and set aside.
All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
100/Deepak/669
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:03:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 08:41:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
