[2026:RJ-JD:12170]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Appli No. 147/2024 Supriya D/o Shri Manish Choudhary, Aged About 21 Years, 18/19 Kamla Nehru Nagar, P.s Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj)

Complainant. ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Jay Gehlot S/o Dinesh Gehlot, Aged About 26 Years, R/o

04 Vidhya Nagar, Chakra Wala Bera, Nayapura Petrol Pump, Jodhpur (Raj)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Jagga Ms. Taniya Chug For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA Mr. Gokulesh Bohra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 11/02/2026 DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 11/02/2026 FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18/03/2026 REPORTABLE BY THE COURT:-

1. The present matter arises out of an instant Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of a portion of the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.790/2024.

2. The aforementioned Criminal Misc. Petition No.790/2024 was instituted by the petitioner Jay Gehlot invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings on the basis of a compromise allegedly arrived at between the petitioner and the complainant.

3. During the hearing of the said petition, the complainant- applicant Supriya D/o Manish Choudhary, who was arrayed as respondent No.2, appeared before this Court along with her counsel and unequivocally acknowledged that a compromise had been amicably effected between herself and the petitioner Jay Gehlot. She further categorically stated before the Court that she did not wish to pursue any criminal proceedings against the petitioner in light of the compromise.

4. In view of the aforesaid compromise and relying upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court deemed it appropriate to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and accordingly passed an order dated 07.03.2024 quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings. However, it has subsequently come to the notice of this Court that due to a slip of mind or inadvertent error, the language employed in paragraph No.7 of the said order resulted in quashing of the entire FIR, whereas the compromise was confined only to the petitioner Jay Gehlot and one Kaushal Sankhla.

5. The complainant-applicant Supriya has therefore filed the present application asserting that the compromise was entered into exclusively with Jay Gehlot and Kaushal Sankhla, and not with the other accused persons named in the FIR. She has contended that her consent for compromise and consequent quashing was limited only to the said two individuals, and the proceedings against the remaining accused were never intended to be terminated.

6. Notice of the instant application was issued by this Court vide order dated 19.05.2025, and the matter was thereafter heard at length. This Court has also carefully perused the written compromise placed on record.

7. A scrutiny of the compromise document reveals that the complainant Supriya, along with her family members Manish Choudhary, Sushila Choudhary and Anil Choudhary, acknowledged settlement of the dispute with Kaushal Sankhla. The compromise appears to have arisen out of a property dispute relating to certain plots, which the parties resolved through mutual understanding and in the larger interest of maintaining harmony.

8. In the compromise, particularly Clause No.3, it is recorded that the possession of the disputed plots had been handed over to the second party, thereby resolving the underlying dispute. Furthermore, Clause No.4 explicitly mentions that in relation to Case No.390/2023, the parties no longer wish to pursue any further proceedings.

9. Considering the submissions advanced before the Court, this Court directed the learned AGA to place a factual report on record. In compliance thereof, the learned AGA submitted a report dated

18.