Bhawani Shankar Purohit S/O Shri Jhumar Mal, Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Bhawani Shankar Purohit S/O Shri Jhumar Mal, Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal miscellaneous petition allowed; FIR No.601/2024 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South) quashed and set aside; stay application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No.601/2024 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South) for offences under Sections 3(5), 115(2) & 127(2) BNS 2023 is liable to be quashed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the material on record including the SHO's factual report dated 04.02.2025, and the fact that the parties resolved their dispute amicably, the case being wholly covered by the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal, the FIR was held liable to be quashed in view of the compromise between the parties.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (supra) and Krishnakant Tamrakar (supra), and since the advocates were abstaining from work that day, the Court deemed it proper to pass order on merits rather than adjourn.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 304/2025, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (Anil Kumar Upman, J.), order dated 07/03/2026: Accused-petitioner Bhawani Shankar Purohit's petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No.601/2024 (Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South)) for offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 115(2) & 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was allowed. A factual report dated 04.02.2025 of the SHO recorded that the parties had settled their dispute and entered into compromise; holding the case wholly covered by the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934) and State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), the Court quashed and set aside the FIR. Although the advocates were abstaining from work, the Court proceeded to decide the matter on merits, invoking Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003 (2) SCC 45) and Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh ((2018) 17 SCC 27) for the position that lawyers have no right to go on strike or call for boycott of Courts.

[2026:RJ-JP:9845]

tHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 304/2025

Bhawani Shankar Purohit S/o Shri Jhumar Mal, R/o G-123, Modi Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.

Sheetal Jajam S/o Late Shri Manaram Saini, R/o F-9, 10, Modi Nagar, Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, presently Resident of F-60, Modi Nagar, Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

Banwair Lal Jajam S/o Late Shri Manaram Saini, R/o F-59, Modi Nagar, Purani Chungi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

07/03/2026

In “Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr.” reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or to give a call for boycott of Courts. Calls given by Bar Association or Bar Council for such purpose cannot require the Court to adjourn the matters. In the case of “Krishnakant Tamrakar versus the State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in (2018) 17 SCC 27, it has been held that strike by advocates is in violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same tantamount to contempt. The

[2026:RJ-JP:9845]

[CRLMP-304/2025]

(2 of 3)

Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the office bearers are liable to be removed from the office for passing resolution for strike. In view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (Supra) and Krishnakant Tamrakar (Supra), since the advocates are abstaining from work today, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits.

By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, the accused-petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.601/2024 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South) for offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 115(2) & 127(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023.

Learned Public Prosecutor places factual report dated 04.02.2025 received from the SHO, Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur (South). According to which, parties have settled their dispute and entered into compromise. The said report is taken on record.

Considering the material made available for perusal including the factual report dated 04.02.2025 and the fact that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and the present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh versus State of Punjab & Anr. reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. versus Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , the aforesaid FIR is liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-304/2025]

[2026:RJ-JP:9845]

In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.601/2024 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South), is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.

Stay application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

LALIT MOHAN /34