The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, has held that where an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties in a road accident case and the complainant as well as the wife of the deceased have no subsisting grievance against the accused, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and the FIR deserves to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers conferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The order was passed by Justice Anuroop Singhi while allowing a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the accused-petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No. 0174/2025 dated October 26, 2025, registered at Police Station Sainthal, District Dausa, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 281, 125(a) and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The facts giving rise to the petition reveal that an accident allegedly took place involving the accused-petitioners and the brother and sister-in-law of the complainant. The accident resulted in the unfortunate demise of the complainant’s brother and caused injuries to his wife, who was also present at the time of the incident. The FIR came to be registered on the complaint of the deceased’s brother. A trial in pursuance of the FIR was pending before the competent court when, on December 12, 2025, an amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties, a copy of which was produced before the Court. The complainant and the wife of the deceased both appeared before the trial court in connection with the compromise, with the wife of the deceased signing the compromise document as a witness.
The petitioners submitted before the High Court that the allegations of rash and negligent driving as levelled in the FIR were not made out on the face of it, and that the incident was an unfortunate happening rather than a result of rash or negligent conduct. It was further submitted that the complainant had duly executed the compromise, and that the wife of the deceased had also willingly agreed to the settlement. An application was also filed on April 15, 2026 before the trial court by the complainant and the wife of the deceased jointly, expressly stating that in view of the settlement having been entered into between the parties, they were no longer willing to proceed further with the case. The trial court vide its order dated April 15, 2026 in Regular Criminal Case No. 3593/2025 compounded the offence under Section 125(a) of the BNS, 2023. However, since the offences under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the BNS, 2023 are non-compoundable in nature, the criminal case pertaining to those charges continued to remain pending before the competent court.
The Court referred to the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, which settled the position of law that a High Court exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC — now corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 — can quash criminal proceedings even in respect of non-compoundable offences where the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled. The Supreme Court in that case had observed: “Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.” The Supreme Court had further laid down that the High Court may quash proceedings in such cases if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, and continuation would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice, amounting to extreme injustice and abuse of the process of law. The Court further held: “In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” The Court also placed reliance on Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, in which this position was consistently reiterated, as well as on a judgment of the Delhi High Court and a co-ordinate bench order of the Rajasthan High Court passed at its Principal Seat, Jodhpur, both of which had quashed FIRs registered under analogous provisions on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
The Court, after examining the material on record, found that the dispute had been amicably resolved, that the settlement had been arrived at out of the free will of the complainant and the wife of the deceased, and that there was no subsisting grievance against the petitioners. The Court held that since the possibility of conviction was remote, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and it would be in the interest of justice to exercise the inherent powers vested in the Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.
Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed and the FIR in question, along with Regular Criminal Case No. 3593/2025 pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Dausa, District Dausa, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, were quashed and set aside. All pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Case Details: Rajkumar & Others versus State of Rajasthan & Others | 2026: RJ-JP:20479
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 