Allowed¶23

Hakam S/O Jafaru v. State of Rajasthan

Quashing of FIR – compromise between parties at investigation stage

Rajasthan HC2 Apr 2026CRLMP/585/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 585/2026, decided 02/04/2026, Uma Shanker Vyas J.): FIR No. 97/2025, PS Kishanganj, District Ajmer, under Sections 76, 79, 333, 304(2) BNS against petitioner Hakam quashed on the basis of compromise with respondent Ajmat Khan at the investigation stage, relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303; petition under S. 528 BNSS allowed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings of First Information Report No. 97/2025 registered at Police Station Kishanganj, District Ajmer against the petitioner Hakam, on the basis of the compromise between the parties. ¶23

Hakam S/O Jafaru Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 97/2025 registered at Police Station Kishanganj, District Ajmer under Sections 76, 79, 333, 304(2) BNS, together with the investigation and consequential proceedings based thereon, can be quashed on the basis of the compromise reached between the complainant side and the accused at the investigation stage.

¶14

Court's answer

In light of the arrangement set out in the Supreme Court's judicial decision in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012(10) SCC 303, the present FIR and the subsequent criminal proceedings founded thereon are fit to be concluded (quashed).

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The matter proved against the accused during investigation is not of a serious or grave nature looking to the character of the injuries; cordial/friendly relations stand established between the parties; hence there is no justification to continue the investigation or further proceedings.

¶21

Key takeaways

The petition filed on behalf of the accused is accepted and the entire proceedings of FIR No. 97/2025 registered at Police Station Kishanganj, District Ajmer against the petitioner are quashed.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — compromise between parties at investigation stage — Petition under S. 528 BNSS by accused Hakam seeking quashing of FIR No. 97/2025, Police Station Kishanganj, District Ajmer, registered under Sections 76, 79, 333, 304(2) BNS — Incident stated by counsel to be accidental, parties being neighbours who settled through mutual understanding; matter at investigation stage — Court found the proved material not serious or grave looking to the nature of injuries and cordial relations established between the parties — Relying on Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012(10) SCC 303, the Court accepted the petition and quashed the entire proceedings of the FIR (Uma Shanker Vyas, J.).

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:13925]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 585/2026

¶4

Hakam S/o Jafaru, R/o 1, Gram Chaurasiyawas, Ajhmer Christianganj, Ajmer Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

Ajmat Khan S/o Mota Khan, R/o 2365, Badi Hatai Ke Pass Gram Chaurasiyawas, Ajmer Christianganj Ajmer Rajasthan

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Jhala, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Shubham Saini, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

02/04/2026

¶14

;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls /kkjk 528 ch-,u-,l-,l- ds rgr ;g ;kfpdk izLrqr djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd ifjoknh dh vksj ls iqfyl Fkkuk&fdzf'p;uxat] ftyk&vtesj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 97@2025 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 76] 79] 333] 304¼2½ ch-,u-,l- esa vkgr ls jkthukek gks pqdk gS] vr% jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij mDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ rFkk vuqla/kku dh dk;Zokgh dks fujLr fd;k tkosA

¶15

fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd ?kVuk vkos'ktfur Fkh] gR;k ds iz;kl dk dksbZ vkjksi ugha Fkk] nksuksa i{kdkjku~ iMkSlh gSa rFkk vc vkilh le>kbZ'k ls jkthukek gks pqdk gSA izdj.k vuqla/kku dh LVst ij gS vkSj vc dksbZ vkxkeh dk;Zokgh ugha pkgrs gSa] vr% izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr dj fn;k tkos rks mUgsa dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA

[2026:RJ-JP:13925]

[CRLMP-585/2026]

(2 of 2)

fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk fof/k&lEer vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶20

fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk rF;kRed fjiksVZ izLrqr dh x;h] ftlds lkFk iqfyl ds le{k vfHk;qDrx.k o vkgrx.k }kjk izLrqr jkthukes dh vknsf'kdk izLrqr djrs gq, bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA

¶21

iqfyl us vfHk;qDr ds fo:) tks ekeyk vuqla/kku ds nkSjku izekf.kr ekuk gS] og pksVksa dh izdfr dks ns[krs gq, xaHkhj o t?kU; izdfr dk ugha gSA i{kdkjku~ ds e/; lkSgknZiw.kZ laca/k LFkkfir gks pqds gSa] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vc vuqla/kku vFkok vkijkf/kd dk;Zokgh dks tkjh j[kus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA

¶22

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d fu.kZ; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012(10) SCC 303 esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds izdk'k esa orZeku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ o mlds vk/kkj ij lafLFkr vkijkf/kd dk;Zokgh vikLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

¶23

ifj.kker% vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk ;kph ds fo:) iqfyl Fkkuk&fdzf'p;uxat] ftyk&vtesj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 97@2025 dh lEiw.kZ dk;Zokgh dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA

¶24

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶25

Mittal /34

Hakam S/O Jafaru v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakam S/O Jafaru 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

M/S Amit Gems Vs M/S S.K. Jewellers

Rajendra Sharma S/O Radheyshyam Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rambabu Meena Son of Prabhulal Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Loduram Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sayar S/O Sawai Vs State of Rajasthan

Semson S/O Wilson Vs State of Rajasthan