[2026:RJ-JD:2986]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 10192/2025 Kartik S/o Lal Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Saran Nagar Road, Banar, District Jodhpur City East.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Manju D/o Dungar Ram, R/o Ashok Colony, Ram Sagar Choraya, Mata Ka Than, District Jodhpur City East.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shruti Rathi For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.S. Jodha, PP Ms. Kratika HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

14/01/2026 This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS has been preferred by the petitioner with the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending against him before the Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Original Case No.11/2023 arising out of FIR No.230/2022, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Jodhpur City East, whereby the trial court vide order dated 14.10.2025 has attested the compromise for the offence under Section 323 IPC, however, refused to attest the compromise under Section 498-A IPC as the same being not compoundable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the complainant-respondent No.2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, the petitioner has been acquitted for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. by the trial court. Learned counsel further submits that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has 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 498-A I.P.C.

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