Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Nilam Soni vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11901) on 12 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:11901]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1861/2026
1. Nilam Soni D/o Shri Ashok Soni, Aged About 30 Years,
Near Narsinghdwara,kuraj, District Rajsamand.
2. Abhimaan Massey S/o Shri Robert Massey, Aged About 43
Years, R/o S-3/, Opp. Rashtra Bharti Academy School,
Nela Road, Goverdhan Vilas, District Udaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Banshi Lal S/o Shri Hari Singh, R/o Thirana, Nohar,
Khuinya, District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gulab Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar, PP
Mr. Gulab Singh, for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
12/03/2026
The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS
(482 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of
FIR No.64/2024, registered at Police Station Khuinyan, District
Hanumangarh for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
and 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during
investigation in the matter, compromise has been arrived at
between both the parties and they have settled their dispute
amicably.
A photocopy of compromise-deed dated 16.09.2025 is placed
on record.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 10:32:08 AM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 04:43:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11901] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1861/2026]
Learned counsel for the complainant 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
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(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 10:32:08 AM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 04:43:08 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11901] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1861/2026]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 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 petitioners can be quashed while exercising powers under
Section 528 of BNSS.
Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is allowed.
FIR No.64/2024, registered qua the petitioners at Police Station
Khuinyan, District Hanumangarh for the offence under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC as well as the entire other
proceedings, are hereby quashed and set aside.
Stay application and all pending applications, if any, stands
disposed of accordingly.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
226-Sanjay/-
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 10:32:08 AM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 04:43:08 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)