Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ahmad Nur Pathan vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 February, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3579/2025
1. Ahmad Nur Pathan S/o Rahim Baksh Pathan, Aged About
51 Years, R/o Beawar Road, Chungi Naka, Tehsil Asind
Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.)
2. Dharmichand Gurjar S/o Hardev Gurjar, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Gopalpura, Teshil Asind Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.)
3. Sampat Lal Gurjar S/o Kanhaiya Lal Gurjar, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Gopalpura, Teshil Asind Distt. Bhilwara
(Raj.)
4. Raju S/o Bhoma, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Darawat,
Teshil Asind Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.)
5. Mustafa Pathan S/o Ahmed Nur Pathan, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Beawar Road, Chungi Naka, Tehsil Asind Distt.
Bhilwara (Raj.)
6. Tosif Pathan S/o Ahmed Nur Pathan, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Beawar Road, Chungi Naka, Tehsil Asind Distt.
Bhilwara (Raj.)
7. Sohel Khan S/o Aslam Mohammad, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Dargah Mohalla, Tehsil Asind Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.)
8. Rahul Khan Pathan S/o Rafik Mohammad Pathan, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Beawar Road, Chungi Naka, Tehsil
Asind Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.)
9. Sarfaraz Mohammad Mansuri S/o Rajjak Mohammad,
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Dargah Mohalla,
Tehsil Asind Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.)
10. Sakul Mewati S/o Jakar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Bhuapur Garhi, Dawak, Bharatpur Nagar, Distt. Bhilwara
(Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Tanveer Mustak S/o Mustak Ahmad, R/o Hawala Farm
House, Tehsil Asind Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 06:45:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 08:31:03 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-3579/2025]
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
Mr. H.S Shrimali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
10/02/2026
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.81/2025 registered at Police
Station Asind, District Bhilwara, for offences punishable under
Sections 189(2), 333, 308(4), 351(3), 324(5) and 131 of BNS.
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(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 06:45:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 08:31:03 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-3579/2025]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 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
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 06:45:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 08:31:03 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-3579/2025]
pending against the petitioners can be quashed while exercising
powers under Section 528 BNSS.
Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The F.I.R.
No.81/2025 registered at Police Station Asind, District Bhilwara
against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 189(2),
333, 308(4), 351(3), 324(5) and 131 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
159-mayank/-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 06:45:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 08:31:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
