Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ishwar Singh Alias Hariom Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:32461]
+
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4295/2026
CNR: RJHC010534422026
URN: CRLMP / 7759U / 2026
Ishwar Singh Alias Hariom Singh S/o Shri Akshay Singh @
Akhesingh Chauhan Rajput, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Date,
Police Station Gangarar, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Devilal S/o Shri Nandram Jat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Soniyana, Tehsil And Police Station Gangarar, District
Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaikishan Haniya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Jagdish Bhadu
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
17/07/2026
The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of FIR
No.0233/2022, registered at Police Station Gangarar, District
Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 341, 307, 427 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/25, 5/25, 3/25(6)
and 3/27 of the Arms Act, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:01:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:56:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32461] (2 of 8) [CRLMP-4295/2026]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the
pendency of the criminal proceedings, the parties have amicably
resolved their disputes and all misunderstandings inter se stand
settled. It is submitted that respondent No.2-complainant has
voluntarily executed a compromise affidavit unequivocally stating
that he does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings against
the petitioner and has no subsisting grievance. Learned counsel
further submits that the complainant has categorically stated that
the petitioner came to be implicated on account of mistaken visual
identification in pitch-dark conditions prevailing at the place of
occurrence and that the dispute essentially arose out of a localized
misunderstanding.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in
view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the
possibility of securing conviction has become extremely remote
and bleak. Continuation of the criminal proceedings, despite
complete settlement of the dispute, would neither advance the
cause of justice nor serve any fruitful purpose and would instead
amount to abuse of the process of law. It is, therefore, prayed
that this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section
528 BNSS and quash the impugned FIR along with all
consequential proceedings.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer
made in the petition. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2, however, does not dispute the factum of compromise having
been arrived at between the parties and fairly submits that the
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:01:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:56:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32461] (3 of 8) [CRLMP-4295/2026]
complainant has voluntarily settled the dispute and has no
objection if the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings
are quashed.
This court having heard learned counsel for the parties and
have carefully perused the material available on record.
The question that arises for consideration is whether, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court
should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS
for quashing the criminal proceedings notwithstanding the fact
that the FIR includes an allegation under Section 307 IPC along
with certain offences under the Arms Act.
The contours governing the exercise of such inherent
jurisdiction are no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303,
while considering the scope of the inherent powers of the High
Court to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise,
authoritatively held that the power of quashing is distinct from the
statutory power of compounding offences and is required to be
exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court. It is further observed that although heinous
offences having serious impact on society ordinarily ought not to
be quashed merely because the parties have entered into a
compromise, criminal cases having an overwhelmingly private
flavour, where the possibility of conviction is remote and
continuation of proceedings would result in oppression and
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:01:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:56:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32461] (4 of 8) [CRLMP-4295/2026]
injustice, constitute a distinct category where exercise of inherent
powers may be justified.
The principles laid down in Gian Singh (supra) were
thereafter elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narinder
Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466,
wherein it was held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction on
the basis of compromise, the High Court is required to balance the
interest of the individual with the larger societal interest. It was
observed that though offences under Section 307 IPC ordinarily
fall in the category of serious offences, the mere incorporation of
Section 307 IPC in the FIR or charge-sheet cannot by itself
operate as an absolute bar against the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction. The High Court is duty bound to examine whether the
incorporation of Section 307 IPC is justified on the facts of the
case by considering, inter alia, the nature of injuries sustained,
the part of the body where the injuries were inflicted, the weapon
allegedly used, the medical evidence available on record and the
overall circumstances in which the occurrence took place. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that where, upon such
examination, the Court is satisfied that the possibility of conviction
is remote and continuation of criminal proceedings would result in
unnecessary oppression despite a genuine settlement between the
parties, the inherent jurisdiction may appropriately be exercised to
secure the ends of justice.
The scope of the inherent powers of the High Court was
further explained in Ramgopal & Anr. v. State of Madhya
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:01:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:56:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32461] (5 of 8) [CRLMP-4295/2026]
Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court observed that criminal proceedings predominantly arising
out of personal disputes, where the victim has voluntarily resolved
the dispute and continuation of prosecution would not advance
any legitimate public interest, may appropriately be quashed
notwithstanding that the offences are formally non-compoundable,
provided the Court is satisfied that such exercise would secure the
ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that the ultimate guiding
considerations remain the advancement of justice, restoration of
peace between the parties and the larger objective of preventing
unnecessary continuation of criminal litigation where the
possibility of conviction has become insignificant.
Recently, in Naushey Ali & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Anr., 2025 INSC 182, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has once
again reiterated that the power of quashing criminal proceedings
in exercise of inherent jurisdiction stands on a different footing
from the statutory power of compounding offences. It was
observed that the mere invocation of Section 307 IPC or any other
serious penal provision would not ipso facto preclude the High
Court from examining whether the ingredients of such offence are
prima facie made out on the basis of the material available on
record. The Court reaffirmed that while exercising jurisdiction on
the basis of compromise, the High Court is required to undertake
a careful evaluation of the factual matrix, the medical evidence,
the surrounding circumstances and the likelihood of conviction so
as to determine whether continuation of the criminal proceedings
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:01:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:56:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32461] (6 of 8) [CRLMP-4295/2026]
would genuinely serve the cause of justice or merely perpetuate
avoidable litigation despite the dispute having attained finality
between the parties.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that the allegations in the impugned FIR
arise out of an incident alleged to have occurred on 16.09.2022,
wherein it is alleged that the vehicle of the complainant was
intercepted near Rajasthani Hotel, Bassi Road, Gangarar and three
rounds were fired from a pistol. As per the allegations contained in
the FIR, the bullets are stated to have struck the complainant’s
vehicle, resulting in damage thereto. During the pendency of the
proceedings, however, the parties have voluntarily resolved their
disputes and the complainant himself has chosen to execute a
compromise affidavit unequivocally stating that he has no
objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. The complainant
has further categorically asserted that the petitioner came to be
implicated due to mistaken visual identification in the prevailing
darkness at the place of occurrence and that he no longer wishes
to prosecute the matter.
Furthermore, the record does not disclose any circumstance
suggesting that the compromise is the result of coercion, undue
influence or any extraneous consideration. The complainant has
voluntarily withdrawn the allegations against the petitioner and
has expressly supported the prayer for quashing of the criminal
proceedings. In such circumstances, compelling the parties to
undergo the rigours of a criminal trial despite complete settlement
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:01:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:56:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32461] (7 of 8) [CRLMP-4295/2026]
would neither advance the administration of criminal justice nor
subserve any larger public interest. On the contrary, it would
unnecessarily prolong litigation where the complainant himself is
no longer desirous of supporting the prosecution, thereby
rendering the possibility of securing a conviction against the
petitioner remote and bleak.
In view of the above and keeping in mind the principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra),
Narinder Singh (supra), Ramgopal (supra) and Naushey Ali
(supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present
case falls within the category of cases where exercise of the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is warranted to
secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of
the Court.
In the facts of the present case, this Court is satisfied that
quashing of the impugned FIR would promote peace between the
parties and secure the ends of justice without adversely affecting
any overriding public interest.
Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition deserves to
be and is hereby allowed.
Consequently, FIR No.0233/2022, registered at Police Station
Gangarar, District Chittorgarh, for the offences under Sections
341, 307, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections
3/25, 5/25, 3/25(6) and 3/27 of the Arms Act, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate
to the present petitioner, are hereby quashed and set aside.
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:01:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:56:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32461] (8 of 8) [CRLMP-4295/2026]
All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
174/Deepak/669
(Uploaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:01:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 08:56:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
