Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Deva Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:29493]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3622/2026
CNR: RJHC010432202026
URN: CRLMP / 6491U / 2026
1. Deva Ram S/o Mulatana Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Nh 19, Main Road, Kalyanpure, Balotra
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Bhima Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Nh 19, Main Road, Kalyanpure, Balotra
3. Bhawani Singh S/o Bhikh Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/
o Nh 19, Main Road, Kalyanpure, Balotra
4. Richhapal Singh Alias Diksa S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Rajputo Ka Wass, Wediya, District Jalore
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Taga Ram S/o Rupa Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Sajiyali Nadiya, Akadada, Tehsil Baytu, Balotra Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
Mr. Chatur Bhuj
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
06/07/2026
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.0007/2026, registered at Police
Station Kalyanpur, District Balotra, for offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 119(2) and 324(4) of BNS and 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.
(Uploaded on 06/07/2026 at 07:15:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 10:25:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29493] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3622/2026]
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the
matter has been settled amicably.
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(Uploaded on 06/07/2026 at 07:15:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 10:25:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29493] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3622/2026]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.”
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 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C).
Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The F.I.R.
No.0007/2026, registered at Police Station Kalyanpur, District
Balotra against the petitioner for the offences under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 119(1) and 324(4) of BNS and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act 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
59/Mayank Chouhan/699
(Uploaded on 06/07/2026 at 07:15:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 10:25:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
