[2025:RJ-JD:46459]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9106/2025 Pankaj S/o Tarachand, Aged About 29 Years, Gaddi Thoriyan Housing Bard, P.s. Kotwali Distt. Beawer, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, PP

2. Usha Spouse/o Pankaj, Aged About 29 Years, D/o Bhanwar Lal, R/o Near Iti Collage, Village Sindhipura, Tehsil Pipar City District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrijeet Singh Solanki For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, P.P.

Mr. Milap Mathur for R-2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

28/10/2025

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS/482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the criminal proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, pending against him before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pipar City, Jodhpur District (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Original Case No. 502/2025 "State Vs. Pankaj.", wherein the trial court vide order dated 29.09.2025 has attested the compromise produced by the parties for the offences punishable under Section 323, 406 IPC and acquitted the petitioner of the said offences, but refused to attest the compromise for the offence under Section 498A IPC against the petitioner as the same is non- compoundable and thus, continued the trial for the said offence. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as the petitioner and the complainant-respondent No.2 have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the trial court attested the compromise and acquitted him of the offence under Section 323, 406 IPC, there is no possibility of his conviction for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. also. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has also admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and the respondent No.2 does not want to press the charges levelled against the petitioner in relation to offence under Section 498A I.P.C. also. The respondent-complainant has no objection if the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner are quashed.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for quashing of the proceedings.

5. 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