##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14198]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1991/2026

Gorkharam S/o Shri Bhojaram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Gram Pratapnagar Shekhasar Tehsil Bap District Phalodi

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Sukhdev S/o Narsingaram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Aakhadana Bap Phalodi District Phalodi

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP

Mr. Puneet Jangu

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

25/03/2026 The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the

petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of FIR No. 30/2026 dated 01.03.2026 registered at PS- Bap, District Phalodi for the offences under Sections 64(1) and 351(2) of the

BNS, 2023.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

allegations levelled in the FIR are false and have arisen due to strained relations between the parties on account of financial transactions. It is submitted that the prosecutrix is a major and has categorically denied the allegations. It is further submitted that with the intervention of mediators, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and entered into a written compromise dated 12.03.2026, and in view thereof, no dispute now survives and the

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:05:11 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 01:51:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14198] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-1991/2026] complainant as well as the prosecutrix do not wish to continue

with the proceedings.

Learned counsel representing the complainant submits that

the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the complainant does not wish to pursue the case further. It is further submitted that the compromise has been executed voluntarily, without any coercion, and is duly supported by affidavits of both

the complainant and the prosecutrix.

As per the compromise placed on record and the affidavits,

the prosecutrix has stated that no such incident as alleged in the FIR took place and that the FIR came to be lodged due to a misunderstanding arising out of financial dispute between her father and the petitioner, and she has no objection to the

quashing of the proceedings.

From the compromise deed placed on record, it appears that

the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and no grievance now survives between them, and the same has been entered into

voluntarily without any pressure or undue influence.

Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the

compromise entered into between the parties, which has been placed on record, as the complainant and is represented through

counsel.

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 05:05:11 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 01:51:13 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14198] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-1991/2026]

The Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant

Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. (Criminal appeal no. 708/2021) , has held that even in offences of serious nature, if the parties have settled the dispute and continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose, the FIR can be

quashed. The relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder:

“3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging,inter alia, that the Appellant had committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that both the Accused (Appellant) and Respondent No. 2 were living together for a considerable while. The complainant's allegation is that the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that He is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage

subsists.

4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance

and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.

5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this may not be