Yash Sharma S/O Subhash Chand Sharma, Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2026)

Yash Sharma S/O Subhash Chand Sharma, Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition under Section 528 BNSS allowed: FIR No. 464/2025 (Police Station Mahila Thana (Jaipur East), District Jaipur (East)) for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, and all proceedings arising therefrom, quashed and settled on the basis of compromise between the parties; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 464/2025 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana (Jaipur East), District Jaipur (East), for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, together with all proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS in view of the mutual settlement between the parties.

Court's answer

In the present case, having regard to the judicial perspectives reflected in the cited precedents (Gian Singh, Ramgopal, Jasmair Singh), the nature of the dispute between the parties, the compromise arrived at between them, and the presently cordial relations between them, it is proper, viewing the fact of settlement between the parties, to exercise the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS and to quash FIR No. 464/2025 and all proceedings arising therefrom.

Ratio / Principle

Accepting the petition, FIR No. 464/2025 of Police Station Mahila Thana (Jaipur East), District Jaipur (East), for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, and all proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed and settled on the basis of the compromise between the parties.

Key takeaways

Pending applications relating to the case, if any, shall likewise stand disposed of.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal miscellaneous petition (S.B. Crl. Misc. (P.) No. 271/2026, Rajasthan HC, Jaipur Bench, decided 12.02.2026 by Bhuwan Goyal, J.) filed by six members of the Sharma family, named as accused, under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No. 464/2025 registered at Mahila Thana (Jaipur East), District Jaipur (East), for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, on the ground of mutual settlement between the parties. On the date of hearing the petitioners and complainant Smt. Chetna appeared in person with counsel and jointly affirmed that a settlement had been reached out of regard for public decency, placed on record as Annexure-2. Relying on the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 (distinction between compounding under Section 320 and quashing in inherent jurisdiction), Ramgopal v. State of M.P. (2022) 14 SCC 531 (inherent-power quashing permissible even where offences are non-compoundable once parties have amicably settled and the victim consents) and Jasmair Singh v. State of Haryana (2022) 9 SCC 73 (quietus to inter-se proceedings in a matrimonial dispute), and considering the nature of the dispute, the compromise and the presently cordial relations between the parties, the Court held it proper to exercise inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS. The petition was allowed: the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed and settled on the basis of compromise; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

[2026:RJ-JP:6767]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 271/2026

Yash Sharma S/o Subhash Chand Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- C-41-B, Dunglod House, Shiv Marg, Hawa Sarak, P.s. Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.)

Subhash Chand Sharma S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o- C-41-B, Dunglod House, Shiv Marg, Hawa Sarak, P.s. Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.)

Smt. Malti Sharma W/o Subhash Chand Sharma, Aged About 65 Years, R/o- C-41-B, Dunglod House, Shiv Marg, Hawa Sarak, P.s. Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.)

Smt. Pooja Sharma W/o Rahul Saraswat D/o Subhash Chand Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Flat No. 388, Talkatora Road, Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

Rahul Saraswat S/o Mahesh Chand, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Flat No. 388, Talkatora Road, Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o-C-41, Dunglod House, Shiv Marg, Hawa Sarak, P.s. Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioners/Accused

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

Smt. Chetna W/o Yash Sharma D/o Late Shri Manmohan Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o At Present 33-A, Anand Vihar-C, Nadi Ka Phatak, Nangal Jaisa Bohara, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Surbhi Khandelwal, Adv. Ms. Jinal Gehalot, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rhishiraj Singh Rathore, PP
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini, Adv. on
	behalf of Mr. Arvind Mahawar, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

(2 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:6767]

[CRLMP-271/2026]

12/02/2026

1 ;kphx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls mDr ,dyihB vkijkf/kd fofo/k ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ] izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 464@2025 iqfyl Fkkuk& efgyk Fkkuk ¼t;iqj] iwoZ½] ftyk& t;iqj ¼iwoZ½] vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 498&, ,oa 406 Hkkna-la- ,oa mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh dks i{kdkjku ds e/; ijLij jkthukek gksus ds vk/kkj ij jí ,oa vikLr fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk ds lkFk izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

2 ;kphx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k rFkk ifjoknh;k psruk 'kekZ O;fDrxr :i ls vius vf/koDrkx.k lfgr vkt U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSa rFkk muds vf/koDrkx.k dk la;qDr :i ls ;g dFku gS fd i{kdkjksa ds e/; yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls jkthukek gks pqdk gS] tks i=koyh ij ,usDlj&2 ds :i esa izLrqr gS] vr% jkthukes ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds rgr gLrxr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 464@2025 ,oa mlls mnHkwr leLr dk;Zokgh jnn ,oa vikLr fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dhA

3 fo}ku vfrfjDr jktdh; vf/koDrk us fof/k&lEer mfpr vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

4 ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303] esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd

''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

(3 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:6767]

[CRLMP-271/2026]

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.''

Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported

in [(2022) 14 SCC 531]

'' 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.''

Jasmair Singh Vs. State of Haryana [(2022) 9 SCC 73]

''while dealing with the quashment of matrimonial dispute, held that since parties buried hatched and decided to give quietus to proceedings which were lodged inter se, hence going by law declared in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303] held that case was eminently suitable to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Crpc for quashment of criminal proceedings.''

5 izLrqr ekeys esa mDr U;kf;d n"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds ifjizs{; esa ,oa nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; fookn dh izdfr] nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; jkthukek rFkk orZeku esa nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; lkSgknZiw.kZ fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds rgr vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, i{kdkjksa ds e/; jkthukek gks tkus dh fLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, gLrxr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 464@2025 ,oa mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh dks vikLr fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

6 vr% ;g ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 464@2025 iqfyl Fkkuk& efgyk Fkkuk ¼t;iqj] iwoZ½ ftyk& t;iqj

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:6767]

[CRLMP-271/2026]

¼iwoZ½ vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 498&, ,oa 406 Hkkna-la- ,oa mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh dks jkthukek gksus ds vk/kkj ij jí ,oa vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA

7 mDr ;kfpdk mijksDr vuqlkj fuLrkfjr dh tkrh gS ,oa izdj.k ls lacaf/kr izkFkZuk i=] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gks rks] mUgsa Hkh fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

NIKITA /93