1. Petition to quash FIR for offences under BNS and SC/ST Act based on amicable settlement. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 546
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.
Rohit Rathore S/o Shri Ranveer Singh Rathore - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP, - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 781 of 2026
Decided On : 16-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Harmeet Singh for Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi
For the Respondent: Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP, Mr. Lakhan Singh Jadoun, Mr. Ayush Bamboriya
For the Petitioner: Mr. Harmeet Singh for Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi
For the Respondent: Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP, Mr. Lakhan Singh Jadoun, Mr. Ayush Bamboriya
High Courts may quash proceedings under the SC/ST Act and BNS based on a voluntary compromise if the offense is primarily private or civil, not motivated by caste, or if continuing the proceedings would abuse the legal process without undermining the special statute's objective.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 352 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) - Quashing of FIR - Compromise between parties - Power of the High Court to quash proceedings involving special statutes - Where the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the special Act would not be contravened or diminished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a special statute would not refrain the Court from exercising its powers to quash proceedings on the basis of a genuine settlement (Paras 5, 6).
(B) Quashing on basis of compromise - The powers to quash criminal proceedings can be invoked based on a voluntary compromise between the complainant and the accused - This is particularly permissible where the offence in question, although covered under a special statute, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence was not committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law (Para 5).
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing an FIR registered for offences punishable under the BNS, 2023 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioners submitted that the parties had settled their dispute amicably and entered into a written compromise, making further legal proceedings a futile exercise and a waste of judicial resources.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the legal position regarding the quashing of proceedings under special statutes based on compromise is settled. Given that the parties had entered into a compromise and the court's caution regarding the free will of the parties was addressed, the FIR was liable to be quashed despite the offences being non-compoundable.
Issues: Whether the High Court can quash an FIR registered under the BNS and the SC/ST Act on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while courts must be circumspect with special statutes intended to protect vulnerable communities, they can quash proceedings when the offense is primarily private or civil, not motivated by caste, or if the continuation of the case is an abuse of process, provided the objective of the Act is not undermined.
Result: Criminal Misc. Petition allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed and set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Parties settled dispute; continuation of proceedings is futile. Counsel relies on Supreme Court precedents for quashing. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Supreme Court held powers under Article 142 and Section 528 BNSS can quash proceedings based on voluntary compromise. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. FIR under SC/ST Act can be quashed if compromise is voluntary and offence is primarily private or civil in nature. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Criminal misc. petition allowed; impugned FIR quashed and set aside. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Can proceedings under the SC/ST Act be quashed on the basis of a compromise?
Yes, if the court is satisfied that the compromise is voluntary and the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. What is the limitation on quashing post-conviction matters based on compromise?
Powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. are exercisable only when an appeal is pending; not after all legal remedies are exhausted. (Para 5 )
8. Are courts obligated to consider statutory provisions when exercising Article 142 powers?
Yes, the court must take note of relevant laws and cannot altogether ignore statutory provisions governing the subject matter. (Para 5 )
9. What factors indicate that quashing proceedings under the SC/ST Act is appropriate?
When the offence is primarily private or civil in nature, or not committed on account of caste, or continuation is an abuse of process. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.
1. Parties are present in person and they have duly been identified by their respective counsel.
2. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners for quashing the impugned FIR No.261/2025 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur (West) for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) & 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1) (s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that parties have settled their dispute amicably and they have entered into compromise. It is submitted that due to compromise, further proceedings in the aforesaid FIR are fruitless and continuation thereof would be a futile exercise and a waste of precious judicial time and resources. The written compromise has been annexed with this petition.
4. In order to support his contention that FIR/proceedings under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC/ST Act’) can be quashed, learned counsel for the petitioners invites attention of this Court towards the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ramawatar versus State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2021 SC 5228 and Gian Singh versus State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. versus Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604
5. In the above referred case of Ramawatar (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the following:
“12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and reiterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and the accused.
13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/ compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).
14. With respect to the second question before us, it must be noted that even though the powers of this Court under Article 142 are wide and far reaching, the same cannot be exercised in a vacuum. True it is that ordinary statutes or any restrictions contained therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on the Court’s power to do “complete justice”. However, this is not to say that this Court can altogether ignore the statutory provisions or other express prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated to take note of the relevant laws and will have to regulate the use of its power and discretion accordingly. The Constitution Bench decision in the case of Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India & Anr. has eloquently clarified this point as follows:
“48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 has the power to make such order as
