Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ravinder Kaur vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:29495]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 428/2025
CNR: RJHC010046382025
URN: CRLMP / 729U / 2025
1. Ravinder Kaur W/o Virinder Paul Singh, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Sangatpura, Faridkot Punjab-151212
2. Virinder Paul Singh S/o Shri Ravinder Paul Singh, Aged
About 36 Years, R/o Sangatpura, Faridkot Punjab-151212
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh
3. Station House Officer, P.s. Hanumangarh Junction,
Hanumangarh,raj.
4. Gurvindar Singh S/o Jaswant Singh, R/o Ward No. 14,
Makkasar, Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh,raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vichitr, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP
Mr. Kailash Prasad
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
06/07/2026
The instant criminal misc. petitions have been filed by the
petitioners under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 (section 482 Cr.P.C)
seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No.223/2024, registered at Police
Station Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh, for
offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120-B
of IPC.
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.
(Uploaded on 06/07/2026 at 07:01:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 10:23:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29495] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-428/2025]
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
(Uploaded on 06/07/2026 at 07:01:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 10:23:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29495] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-428/2025]
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 petitioners can be quashed while exercising
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the present misc. petitions are allowed. The
F.I.R. No. 223/2024, registered at Police Station Hanumangarh
Junction, District Hanumangarh, against the petitioner for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC
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
2/Jatin Kumar/650
(Uploaded on 06/07/2026 at 07:01:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 10:23:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
