Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Noor Mohd Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:31472]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3471/2026
CNR: RJHC010415082026
URN: CRLMP / 6216U / 2026
Noor Mohd Khan S/o Sammu Khan, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Ravvala, Police Station Bajju, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt Gaytri W/o Devendra Nath, R/o Makan No. S-80, Nri
Colony, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Acharya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP
Mr. Naved Khan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
14/07/2026
The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been
preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the criminal
proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Bikaner arising out of FIR No.205/2014
registered at Police Station Bajju, District Bikaner for the offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
It is submitted that though the petitioner was acquitted by
the learned trial court for the offence under Section 420 IPC on
the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties,
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:49:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 08:45:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31472] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3471/2026]
however, proceedings were directed to continue against the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the
pendency of proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their
disputes and have entered into a compromise.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 does not
dispute the factum 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(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:49:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 08:45:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31472] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3471/2026]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 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 petitioner can be quashed while exercising
powers under Section 528 BNSS.
Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the
criminal proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bikaner, arising out of FIR No.205/2014
registered at Police Station Bajju, District Bikaner and all
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:49:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 08:45:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31472] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3471/2026]
subsequent criminal proceedings sought to be taken thereunder
against the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
24/Hanuman Ram/365
(Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:49:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 08:45:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
