Allowed¶31

Mohammad Shoaib Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Feb 2025CRLMP/1104/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise/settlement between parties; noncompoundable offences quashed under inherent powers; Section 528 BNSS; reliance on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; essentially personal/inter se dispute not affecting public peace; FIR No. 21/2025, P.S. Ambamata, Udaipur; offences under Sections 420, 406, 427, 386, 34 IPC (cheating, criminal breach of trust, mischief, extortion, common intention); criminal miscellaneous petition allowed; accused acquitted from charges; bail bonds discharged; Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur; decision dated 05/02/2025; Justice Farjand Ali.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 21/2025 and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof quashed and set aside; accused acquitted from the charges and bail bonds discharged; stay petition disposed of. ¶31

Mohammad Shoaib Khan Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR No. 21/2025 and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof quashed and set aside; accused acquitted from the charges and bail bonds discharged; stay petition disposed of.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 21/2025 (P.S. Ambamata, District Udaipur) and the criminal proceedings thereunder, founded on a dispute since amicably settled between the parties, should be quashed under the inherent power (Section 528 BNSS) notwithstanding that the alleged offences are noncompoundable.

¶18

Court's answer

Adopting the principles propounded by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, where the dispute is essentially inter se between the parties (whether relatives, neighbours or in business relationship) and does not affect the society at large or public peace and tranquility, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, even where the offence is noncompoundable, so as to maintain harmonious relationships, end the dispute permanently and secure restitution of relationship.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

In the present case, although the offences are not compoundable, the parties having settled the dispute amicably and the matter being essentially inter se without affecting public peace and tranquility, it was deemed appropriate to quash the FIR and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.

¶30

Key takeaways

The criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed; FIR No. 21/2025 and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside; the accused are acquitted from the charges and their bail bonds are discharged; the stay petition stands disposed of.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur), single bench of Farjand Ali, J. (order dated 05/02/2025): Petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No. 21/2025, P.S. Ambamata, District Udaipur (offences under Sections 420, 406, 427, 386 and 34 IPC) allowed on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. Though the offences were noted to be noncompoundable, the Court, relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, held that where the dispute is essentially inter se the parties and does not affect public peace or tranquility, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings to maintain harmony and secure ends of justice. FIR and all further proceedings quashed and set aside; accused acquitted from the charges and bail bonds discharged; stay petition disposed of.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JD:7898]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1104/2025

¶4

Mohammad Shoaib Khan S/o Abdul Haphij Khan, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 12, Ratakhet Rimjim Vatika, 80 Ft. Road, Mulla Talai, Girwa, Dist. Udaipur, Raj.

¶5

Noor Sultan S/o Nazar Mohammad, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 91 Firdos Nagar, Savina (Rural), Dist. Udaipur, Raj.

¶6

Mohammad Hussain S/o Munir Ahmad, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 13 New Vinayak Nagar, Sector 12, Savina (Rural), Dist. Udaipur, Raj.

¶7

Imran Hussain S/o Mohammad Yusuf, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 435, Raza Colony, Near Mosque, Mulla Talai, Girwa, Dist. Udaipur, Raj.

¶8

Imroj S/o Siddiq Khan, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 351, Faruq Azam Nagar, Mulla Talai, Girwa, Dist. Udaipur, Raj.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶12

Chagan Lal Kalbeliya S/o Nathu Lal Kalbeliya, R/o 80 Ft. Road, Kalbeliya Colony, Dist. Udaipur.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Zafar Khan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with
	Mr. Ravindra
	Mr. Saurabh Soni

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶16

Order

¶17

05/02/2025

¶18

The instant criminal misc. Petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of FIR No. 21/2025 registered at Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur, Rajasthan for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 427, 386 and 34 of IPC.

[2025:RJ-JD:7898]

[CRLMP-1104/2025]

(2 of 3)

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute in between the parties has been resolved through an amicable settlement and now, there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings further.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for complainant-respondent admits the fact of compromise and submits that he is willing if the FIR and the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

¶25

Heard, perused the material available on record more particularly the police report, nature of allegation and the compromise deed executed in between the parties. The parties to the lis have resolved their dispute amicably and do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings and have jointly prayed for quashing of the same. The offence alleged in this matter is noncompoundable, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] has propounded that if it is convinced that offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect the public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the same by exercising the inherent powers vested in it. It is observed that in such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution and pursuing such a lame prosecution would be a waste of time and energy that will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JD:7898]

[CRLMP-1104/2025]

restoration of peace. This court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and feels that where the dispute is essentially inter se between the parties, either they are relatives, neighbours or having business relationship and which does not affect the society at large, then in such cases, with a view to maintain harmonious relationships between the two sides, to end-up the dispute in between them permanently as well as for restitution of relationship, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all other subsequent proceedings initiated thereto.

¶30

Here in this case, though the offences are not compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that is essentially in between the parties which is not affecting public peace and tranquility, therefore, with a view to maintain the harmony and to resolve the dispute finally in between the parties, it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.

¶31

Accordingly, the criminal misc. Petition is allowed and the FIR mentioned above, and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed and set aside. The accused are acquitted from the charges and their bail bonds are discharged.

¶32

The stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶33

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶34

311-divya/-

Mohammad Shoaib Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Shoaib Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pintu Salvi Vs State of Rajasthan

Heparam Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Yashpal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhu Singh Rajpurohit Vs State of Rajasthan