Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crlmp / 6604U / 2026Aalap Dewra vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:22288) on 8 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:22288]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3695/2026
1. Aalap Dewra S/o Dhagal Chand Dewra, Aged About 40
Years, Resident Of 207, Behind Ganesh Garh, Data Nagar,
District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
2. Dhagal Chand Dewara S/o Shiv Lal, Aged About 70 Years,
Resident Of 207, Behind Ganesh Garh, Data Nagar,
District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Navjyoti W/o Aalap Dewra, Aged About 35 Years,
Daughter Of Paras Mal, Resident o
f 207, Behind Ganesh Garh, Data Nagar, District Ajmer, At
Present Resident Of Bilara (Jodhpur).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Shekhawat
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Mohit Panwar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
08/05/2026
1. The petitioners have preferred the present misc. petition
seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in Criminal Original Case
No.182/2024 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Jodhpur arising out of F.I.R. No.11/2024 registered at Mahila
Police Station, Jodhpur Rural, for offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the
pendency of the proceedings in question, the parties have entered
into compromise. Consequently, an application was submitted
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 04:08:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 04:19:47 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22288] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-3695/2026]
before learned trial Court. Although, the learned trial Court
accepted the compromise to the extent of Sections 406 and 323 of
the IPC, however denied to compound the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of the IPC. He prays that the complete
proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise between
the parties. Learned counsel relied on the judgments rendered in
the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana; (2003) 4 SCC
675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.; (2012) 10
SCC 303 .
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 concurs with the
factum of compromise and submits that in view of the
compromise, the complainant is not inclined to further prosecute
the petitioners.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. In the case of B.S. Joshi (supra), the Apex Court observed
as under:
“11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre: (1988) 1 SCC 692, it was held that
while exercising inherent power of quashing under
Section 482, it is for the High court to take into
consideration any special features which appear in a
particular case to consider whether it is expedient and
in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to
continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of
an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful
purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal
prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into
consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the
proceedings.
12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are
evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
13. The observations made by this Court, though in a
slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad :
(2000) 3 SCC 693 are very apt for determining the
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 04:08:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 04:19:47 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22288] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-3695/2026]approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial
dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an
outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony the main purpose of
which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life
and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions
resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which
elders of the family are also involved with the result that
those who could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being
arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many
other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties
may ponder over their defaults and terminate their
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and
years to conclude and in that process the parties lose
their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different
courts.
14. There is no doubt that he object of introducing
Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian
Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by
her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-
A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his
relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or
her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The
hyper-technical view would be counter productive and
would act against interests of women and against the
object for which this provision was added. There is
every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to
quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would
prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the
object of Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code.
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash
criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section
320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers
under Section 482 of the Code.”
5.1. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra)
observed 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(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 04:08:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 04:19:47 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22288] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-3695/2026]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 predominatingly 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 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.”
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 04:08:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 04:19:47 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:22288] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-3695/2026]
6. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties
and applying the ratio laid down in the decision of B.S. Joshi
(supra) and Gian Singh (supra), this Court deems it just and
proper to invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 of the
BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The
criminal proceedings in Criminal Original Case No.182/2024
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur, are
quashed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
87-Ashutosh/-
(Uploaded on 08/05/2026 at 04:08:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/05/2026 at 04:19:47 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
