Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Nathu Ram Meghwal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:18248) on 18 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:18248]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3103/2026
1. Nathu Ram Meghwal S/o Shri Bagda Ram, Aged About 33
Years, 80-B, Kumaharo Ka Nichla Bas, Suraj Pole, Pali,
(Raj.)
2. Mahipal Singh Bhati S/o Shri Mahendra Singh Bhati, Aged
About 22 Years, 586 Bapu Nagar, Vistar, Pali, Rajasthan
3. Sanjay S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 41 Years,
Kaliya Dukka, Bakra Mandi, Pratapnagar, Jodhpur, (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Kasna S/o Shri Rataji, Varman, Revdar, Sirohi, Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. MRS Malawat
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
Mr. Mahendra Godara for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
18/04/2026
The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the
petitioners under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 (section 482 Cr.P.C)
seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No.242/2024, registered at Police
Station Sadar Pali, District Pali, for offences punishable under
Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)(A), 351(2) and
351(3) of BNS.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the
matter has been settled amicably.
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:47:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:30:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18248] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3103/2026]
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 does not dispute
the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties.
The Hon’ble Apex Court while answering a reference in the
case of Gian Singh Vs. 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(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:47:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:30:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18248] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3103/2026]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.”
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 petitioners can be quashed while exercising
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The F.I.R.
No.242/2024, registered at Police Station Pali Sadar, District Pali
against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 318(4), 338,
336(3), 340(2), 61(2)(A), 351(2) and 351(3) of BNS and all other
subsequent proceedings sought to be taken thereunder are hereby
quashed and set aside.
All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
46-Jatin/-
(Uploaded on 18/04/2026 at 02:47:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/04/2026 at 08:30:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)