Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mohni Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8581) on 16 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8581]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1296/2026
Mohni Kumari W/o Heera Lal Gameti, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Dingariya, Village Poonawali Police Station Rajnagar , Dist.
Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Bhoora Lal S/o Lakshmi Chand Dave, Aged About 72
Years, R/o Poonawali Police Station Rajnagar , Dist.
Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokendra Singh Chundawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Ravindra Singh, for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
16/02/2026
This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS
has been with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending
against the petitioner before the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rajsamand in Criminal Regular Case No.1217/2016
(arising out of FIR No.31/2016 registered at Police Station,
Rajnagar, District Sri Ganganagar) titled as “State Vs. Mohini &
Ors.“, whereby the learned trial court vide order dated 03.11.2025
has attested the compromise under Sections 406, 120-B IPC,
however, refused to attest the compromise to the extent of
offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC, as being non-
compoundable.
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 12:40:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:07:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8581] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1296/2026]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 12:40:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:07:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8581] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1296/2026]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 Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Gian Singh‘s case (supra) this Court is of the opinion
that it is a fit case, wherein criminal proceedings pending against
the petitioner can be quashed while exercising powers under
Section 528 of BNSS.
Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is allowed; the
criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner before the
court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand in Criminal
Regular Case No.1217/2016 (arising out of FIR No.31/2016
registered at Police Station, Rajnagar, District Sri Ganganagar)
titled as “State Vs. Mohini & Ors.“, are hereby quashed.
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 12:40:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:07:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8581] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1296/2026]
Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stands
disposed of accordingly.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
118-Sanjay/-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 12:40:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 17/02/2026 at 09:07:13 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
