Arvind Sharma S/O Sh. Sitaram Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Arvind Sharma S/O Sh. Sitaram Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed: FIR No. 469/2024 (PS Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur City North) and all proceedings arising therefrom, for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 189(2) BNS, quashed on account of the settlement between the parties; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 469/2024 of Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur City (North) — offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 189(2) BNS — and all proceedings arising therefrom should be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS on the basis of the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties.

Court's answer

Taking into view the principles propounded in the cited judicial viewpoints (Gian Singh, Ramgopal, Jasmair Singh), the nature of the dispute between the parties, the settlement arrived at between them and their present cordial relations, the Court, exercising the inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, considers it appropriate to quash FIR No. 469/2024 and all proceedings arising therefrom.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is accepted, and FIR No. 469/2024 of Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, district Jaipur City (North) (offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 189(2) BNS), together with all proceedings arising therefrom, is ordered cancelled and quashed on the basis of the settlement between the parties.

Key takeaways

The petition stands disposed of as above, and any pending applications relating to the case, if any, shall likewise stand disposed of.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), order dated 06/02/2026 by Bhuwan Goyal, J., in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 473/2025 [2026:RJ-JP:5591]: petition under Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, by accused Arvind Sharma seeking quashing of FIR No. 469/2024 of Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, district Jaipur City (North) (offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 189(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) and all proceedings arising therefrom, allowed; FIR and consequent proceedings cancelled and quashed on the basis of the settlement reached between the accused and complainant Yogesh Soni in the spirit of a Lok Adalat, the settlement deed having been submitted at the police station pursuant to the Court's order and placed on file as Annexure-2; decision rendered with reference to the principles in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, Ramgopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 14 SCC 531 and Jasmair Singh v. State of Haryana (2022) 9 SCC 73; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

[2026:RJ-JP:5591]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 473/2025

Arvind Sharma S/o Sh. Sitaram Sharma, R/o Pradhano Ki Dhani, Mansharampura, Jaipur.

----Accused-Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent

Yogesh Soni S/o Shree Subhash Chand Soni, Age 18 Years, R/o 92 Shivkumari Jhotwara, Jaipur.

----Complainant-Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anirudh Singh Rathore, Adv. For
	Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Punia, Addl. GA
For Complainant(s)	: Ms. Ananya Gupta, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order

06/02/2026

1 ;kph dh vksj ls mDr ,dyihB vkijkf/kd fofo/k ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk] izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 469@2024 iqfyl Fkkuk& fo|k/kj uxj] ftyk& t;iqj 'kgj¼mRrj½] vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 115¼2½] 126¼2½] 189¼2½ Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk ,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 Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk fo|k/kj uxj] t;iqj mRrj }kjk izdj.k la[;k 469@2024 esa izLrqr rF;kRed fjiksVZ fnukafdr 02-01-2026 dks fjdkWMZ ij fy;k x;kA

3 ;kph&vfHk;qDr rFkk ifjoknh ;ksxs'k ,oa vkgr yksdsanz 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 ,usDlj&2

[2026:RJ-JP:5591]

[CRLMP-473/2025]

(2 of 3)

ds :i esa i=koyh ij izLrqr gS] mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd muesa vkil esa lkSgknZiw.kZ laca/k gS] muds }kjk iqfyl Fkkuk fo|k/kj uxj t;iqj mRrj esa U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ls mifLFkr gksdj i{kdkjksa esa jkthukek gksus ckcr~ foys[k izLrqr dj fn;k gS] i{kdkjksa esa vkil esa jkthukek gks pqdk gS] vr% jkthukes ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds rgr gLrxr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 469@2024 ,oa mlls mnHkwr leLr dk;Zokgh jnn ,oa vikLr fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dhA

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

5

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 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

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:5591]

[CRLMP-473/2025]

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.''

6 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 469@2024 ,oa mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh dks vikLr fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

7 vr% ;g ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 469@2024 iqfyl Fkkuk& fo|k/kj uxj ftyk& t;iqj 'kgj¼mRrj½ vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 115¼2½] 126¼2½] 189¼2½ Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk ,oa mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh dks jkthukek gksus ds vk/kkj ij jí ,oa vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA

8 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

RAHUL KUMAR KHANDELWAL /06