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

Criminal miscellaneous petition allowed. FIR No. 469/2024 of Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, District Jaipur City (North), for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and all proceedings arising therefrom, quashed and set aside on the basis of settlement between the parties; any pending application(s) relating to the case also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 469/2024 of Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, District Jaipur City (North), registered for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, together with all proceedings arising therefrom, should be quashed and set aside on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

Court's answer

Within the framework of the judicial principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and having regard to the nature of the dispute, the settlement between the parties and their present cordial relations, the Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS and taking into view the fact of settlement, considered it appropriate to quash FIR No. 469/2024 and all proceedings arising therefrom.

Ratio / Principle

The petition was accepted and FIR No. 469/2024 of Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, District Jaipur City (North), for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, together with all proceedings arising therefrom, was ordered to be quashed and set aside on the ground of settlement between the parties.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR on settlement between parties — inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS. Allowed: The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench, Bhuwan Goyal, J.) allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and quashed FIR No. 469/2024 of Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, District Jaipur City (North), registered for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, together with all proceedings arising therefrom, on the basis of an amicable settlement between the accused-petitioner (Arvind Sharma) and the complainant-respondent (Yogesh Soni), evidenced by a settlement deed (Annexure-2) filed at the police station pursuant to the court's order, the parties having appeared in person and confirmed the settlement. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531, and Jasmair Singh v. State of Haryana, (2022) 9 SCC 73, the Court held that where the parties have genuinely settled their dispute out of goodwill and now bear cordial relations towards each other, the ends of justice justify exercise of the High Court's inherent powers to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings, notwithstanding that the offences may be non-compoundable.

[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