Megraj @ Meghraj v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Feb 2025CRLMP/1116/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise/settlement between parties; inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS; non-compoundable offences; BNS Sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 308(6), 3(5); Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 relied upon; essentially inter se dispute; lame prosecution; restitution of relationship; public peace and tranquility; FIR No. 382/2024, P.S. Pachpadra, District Balotra; CRLMP 1116/2025; Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur; Farjand Ali, J.; acquittal and discharge of bail bonds; stay petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal misc. petition allowed; FIR No. 382/2024 and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof quashed and set aside; accused petitioner acquitted from the charges and, if on bail, bail bonds discharged; stay petition disposed of. ¶¶30

Megraj @ Meghraj Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No. 382/2024 (P.S. Pachpadra, District Balotra) on the ground of compromise between the parties deserves to be allowed. +1 more

¶¶15

Ratio / Principle

Guided by 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 having 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 other subsequent proceedings, even though some of the offences may be non-compoundable.

¶¶28

Key takeaways

In the present case, though some of the offences are not compoundable, the parties having settled the dispute amicably, the complainant-respondent No. 2 not wishing to continue the proceedings, and the dispute being essentially inter se and not affecting public peace and tranquility, it is deemed appropriate to quash the FIR and all further proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench (Farjand Ali, J.), order dated 06/02/2025 in S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1116/2025. Petition under Section 528 BNSS by three accused persons for quashing of FIR No. 382/2024, Police Station Panchpadra, District Balotra, registered for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 308(6) and 3(5) of BNS, on the basis of a compromise-deed executed between the parties. Some of the alleged offences were non-compoundable. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Court held that where the dispute is essentially inter se between the parties and does not affect public peace or tranquility, the High Court should exercise its inherent power to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings so as to maintain harmony and restore the relationship, notwithstanding non-compoundability of some offences. The complainant-respondent No. 2 admitted the compromise and consented to quashing; the Public Prosecutor opposed. Held: petition allowed; FIR and all further proceedings quashed and set aside; accused petitioner acquitted from the charges and bail bonds discharged if on bail; stay petition disposed of.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JD:8289]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1116/2025

¶4

Megraj @ Meghraj S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vagtaniyo Ki Dhani, Village Post Kalewa, Tehsil Pachpadra, P.s. Pachpadara Dist. Balotra.

¶5

Ashok Dhaka S/o Sh. Dala Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/ o Gud Nagar, Suraj Bera, Tehsil Pachpadara, P.s. Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra.

¶6

Rajesh Kumar @ Ramesh S/o Mula Ram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Kanwarli, Tehsil Pachpadra, P.s. Pachpadra, Dist. Balotra.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

Mangal Singh Rathore S/o Anop Singh Rathore, R/o Mayur Vihar, Haldiram Payau, Jaipur Road, Bikaner.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Doulat Ram
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. Vikash Vishnoi

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶14

06/02/2025

¶15

The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.382/2024 registered at Police Station Panchpadra, District Balotra for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 308(6), 3(5) of BNS on the ground of compromise.

¶16

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute in this matter is inter se between the parties which does not affect the societal interest or anyway disturb the tranquility or public peace. It is further submitted that dispute in between the parties has been resolved through an amicable settlement, for which a compromise-deed has been executed and submitted before this Court, and now, there remains no controversy in between them and the parties do not wish to continue the criminal proceedings further.

[CRLMP-1116/2025]

[2025:RJ-JD:8289]

(2 of 3)

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for complainant-respondent No.2 admits the fact of compromise and submits that complainant-respondent No.2 is willing if the FIR and the proceedings are quashed on the basis of compromise entered in between the parties.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record more particularly 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.

¶23

Some of the offences alleged in this matter are noncompoundable, however, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in [(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 restoration of peace.

¶24

This court is aptly guided by the principles propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and feels that where the dispute is

[2025:RJ-JD:8289]

[CRLMP-1116/2025]

(3 of 3)

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 endup 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.

¶29

Here in this case, though some of the offences are not compoundable but the parties have settled the dispute amicably, the complainant-respondent No.2 do not wish to continue the proceedings against the petitioner 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

The accused petitioner is acquitted from the charges and if he is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.

¶32

The stay petition is disposed of.

¶33

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶34

238-chhavi/-

Megraj @ Meghraj v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Megraj @ Meghraj 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

Mohammad Shoaib Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Yashpal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhu Singh Rajpurohit Vs State of Rajasthan

Deependra Asarsa Vs State of Rajasthan

Shishram Vs State of Rajasthan