Cross FIRs between members of the same family over a matrimonial dispute were settled during trial. Relying on Supreme Court authority permitting quashing of settled disputes even where offences are non-compoundable, the Court allowed both miscellaneous petitions and quashed the two criminal cases.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:35385]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
Connected with
(2 of 5)
[2025:RJ-JP:35385]
[CRLMP-5347/2025]
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order
03/09/2025
[2025:RJ-JP:35385]
[CRLMP-5347/2025]
(3 of 5)
before Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur arising out of FIR No. 384/2024 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur City (North) for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 333, 309(4), 229(1) and 61(2)(a) of BNS, 2023 and Criminal Case No. 617/2024: State Vs. Nizamuddin & Ors. pending before Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan II, Jaipur arising out of FIR No. 350/2024 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur City (North) for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2) and 74 of BNS, 2023.
[2025:RJ-JP:35385]
[CRLMP-5347/2025]
(4 of 5)
“57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
[2025:RJ-JP:35385]
[CRLMP-5347/2025]
(5 of 5)
The above principles of law have been followed and reiterated by the Apex Court, recently, in case of Naushey Ali and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2025) 4 SCC 78].
“12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are noncompoundable.”
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /55 & 57
1 issue framed by the court
Whether cross-FIR criminal proceedings arising from a family/matrimonial dispute can be quashed under inherent powers despite non-compoundable offences, given the parties' amicable settlement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh Vs. State of PunjabRelied on¶4
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Naushey Ali and Others Vs. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶4
(2025) 4 SCC 78 · Who else cites this
Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶5
(2022) 14 SCC 531 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Farukh Khan
Ibrahim Khan
Dilwar Khan
Mafia
Heena Alias Naseem Bano
Mohd. Sameer
Sudesh Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
