Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rajveer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:34518]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6170/2024
CNR: RJHC010683372024 | URN: CRLMP / 12080U / 2024
1. Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Jai Singh, Aged About 16 Years,
R/o Ward No. 3, Village Sarunda Police Station Panchu,
Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, (Rajasthan) Through
Natural Guardian Jai Singh (Father)
2. Yashpal Singh S/o Shri Tej Singh, Aged About 17 Years,
R/o Village Sarunda Police Station Panchu, Tehsil Nokha,
District Bikaner, (Rajasthan) Through Natural Guardian
Tej Singh (Father)
3. Bablu Singh@ Sangu Singh S/o Shri Mool Singh, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Village Sarunda Police
Station Panchu, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner,
(Rajasthan)
4. Devi Singh S/o Shri Mool Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/
o Ward No. 2, Village Sarunda Police Station Panchu,
Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, (Rajasthan)
5. Chhotu Singh S/o Shri Mool Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Ward No. 2, Village Sarunda Police Station Panchu,
Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, (Rajasthan)
6. Pahad Singh S/o Shri Mool Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Ward No. 2, Village Sarunda Police Station Panchu,
Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sona Ram S/o Shri Surja Ram Nayak, R/o Village Sarunda
Police Station Panchu, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner,
(Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. D. Chitlangi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, P. P.
Mr. Manohar Singh Rathore for the
complainant
(Uploaded on 24/07/2026 at 05:51:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 10:52:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34518] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-6170/2024]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
24/07/2026
1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-petitioners have
approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR
No.206/2024 registered at Police Station Panchu, District Bikaner
seeking petitioners’ prosecution for the offences punishable under
Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352, 307, 351(2), 351(3), 189(2),
324(4), 324(5) of BNS, 2023 and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(2)(va) & 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during
pendency of the investigation, the petitioners have entered into a
compromise with the complainant and in this regard a written
compromise has also been submitted.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant while accepting the
factum of compromise submits that the complainant has no
objection if the FIR in question is quashed.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that since the FIR has
been registered under the provisions of SC/ST Act, the same
cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise. He, however,
accepts the factum of compromise having been entered into
without coercion and duress.
5. In order to support his contention that FIR/proceedings
under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘SC/ST Act’) can be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioner
(Uploaded on 24/07/2026 at 05:51:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 10:52:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34518] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-6170/2024]
invites Court’s attention towards the order dated 25.10.2021
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 5228.
6. In the above referred case of Ramawatar (supra), Hon’ble
the Supreme Court has observed thus :
“12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we
affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra)
and reiterate that the powers of this Court under
Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal
proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise
between the complainant/victim and the accused.
13. We, however, put a further caveat that the
powers under Article 142 or under Section 482
Cr.P.C., are exercisable in postconviction matters
only where an appeal is pending before one or the
other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an
order of conviction does not attain finality till the
accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and
the finality is subjudice before an appellate court.
The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may
before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the
superior court’s plenary powers to do complete
justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued
post the attainment of all legal remedies, the
annulment of proceedings on the basis of a
compromise would be impermissible. Such an
embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from
gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/
compromise will always be loaded with lurking
suspicion about its bona fide. We have already
clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary
powers is not to incentivise any hollow hearted
agreements between the accused and the victim but(Uploaded on 24/07/2026 at 05:51:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 10:52:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34518] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-6170/2024]to do complete justice by effecting genuine
settlement(s).
14. With respect to the second question before us, it
must be noted that ven though the powers of this
Court under Article 142 are wide and far reaching,
the same cannot be exercised in a vacuum. True it is
that ordinary statutes or any restrictions contained
therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on the
Court’s power to do “complete justice”. However,
this is not to say that this Court can altogether
ignore the statutory provisions or other express
prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated to
take note of the relevant laws and will have to
regulate the use of its power and discretion
accordingly. The Constitution Bench decision in the
case of Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India &
Anr. has eloquently clarified this point as follows:
“48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 142 has the power to make such order
as is necessary for doing complete justice “between
the parties in any cause or matter pending before
it”. The very nature of the power must lead the
Court to set limits for itself within which to exercise
those powers and 6 (1998) 4 SCC 409, 48 ordinarily
it cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a
subject, except perhaps to balance the equities
between the conflicting claims of the litigating
parties by “ironing out the creases” in a cause or
matter before it. Indeed this Court is not a court of
restricted jurisdiction of only disputesettling. It is
well recognised and established that this Court has
always been a law maker and its role travels beyond
merely disputesettling. It is a “problem solver in the
nebulous areas” (see K. Veeraswami v. Union of
India [(1991) 3 SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] but
the substantive statutory provisions dealing with the(Uploaded on 24/07/2026 at 05:51:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 10:52:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34518] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-6170/2024]subjectmatter of a given case cannot be altogether
ignored by this Court, while making an order under
Article 142. Indeed, these constitutional powers
cannot, in any way, be controlled by any statutory
provisions but at the same time these powers are
not meant to be exercised when their exercise may
come directly in conflict with what has been
expressly provided for in a statute dealing expressly
with the subject.”
15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising
out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the
Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach.
The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter
acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against
members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality
that despite undertaking several measures, the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be
subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-
castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact
that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the
express constitutional safeguards enumerated in
Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a
twinfold objective of protecting the members of
these vulnerable communities as well as to provide
relief and rehabilitation to the victims of castebased
atrocities.
16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court
that the offence in question, although covered under
the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature,
or where the alleged offence has not been
committed on account of the caste of the victim, or
where the continuation of the legal proceedings
would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court
can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings.
(Uploaded on 24/07/2026 at 05:51:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 10:52:34 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34518] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-6170/2024]
On similar lines, when considering a prayer for
quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if
the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of
the Act would not be contravened or diminished
even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the
mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special
statute’ would not refrain this Court or the High
Court, from exercising their respective powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482
Cr.P.C.”
7. The aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court settles
the legal position so far as this Court’s power to quash the
proceedings/FIR (in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure) is concerned, in cases where the parties
have entered into compromise in the cases involving offences
under the provisions of SC/ST Act. The only caution which is to be
borne in mind is, that the compromise must be with free will.
8. In view of the aforesaid legal position and considering the
submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and in light
of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar
(supra), the FIR is liable to be quashed in the face of compromise
between the parties although the offences are not compoundable.
9. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed
and the FIR No.206/2024 registered at Police Station Panchu,
District Bikaner is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.
10. Stay application and all pending application(s) also stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
245/A.Arora/-
(Uploaded on 24/07/2026 at 05:51:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/07/2026 at 10:52:34 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
