The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that courts possess inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even when offences are technically non-compoundable, provided a genuine compromise exists and continuation of the case would defeat the ends of justice. This ruling extends the scope of the Gian Singh doctrine beyond its traditional boundaries, offering critical relief to parties who have resolved disputes amicably.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sajjan Singh, was named in FIR No. 0244/2019 registered at Police Station Khamnour, District Rajsamand, for alleged offences under Section 341, Section 323, Section 451, and Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 3 of the Rajasthan Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2008. The incident arose from a dispute involving medical services rendered by respondent No. 2, a medical officer.
Procedural History
- 15 November 2019: FIR registered at Police Station Khamnour
- 2023 - 2025: Trial proceedings initiated; multiple hearings held
- 1 September 2025: Trial Court accepted compromise for IPC offences but refused to compound Section 3 of the Rajasthan Medicare Act, holding it non-compoundable under law
- January 2026: Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR and all proceedings
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings on the ground that the parties had entered into a voluntary, bona fide compromise, and continued prosecution would serve no public interest.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a High Court to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences when the parties have reached a genuine compromise, even if the statute explicitly bars compounding.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 to argue that the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is not confined to compoundable offences. He emphasized that the compromise was voluntary, documented, and endorsed by the victim, making continuation of proceedings unnecessary and unjust. He contended that the object of criminal law includes reconciliation and restoration of social harmony, not merely punishment.
For the Respondent
The State did not oppose the quashing. The Public Prosecutor and the complainant (respondent No. 2) confirmed that they had no objection to terminating the proceedings, having received full satisfaction through the compromise. The State’s position effectively conceded that no public interest would be served by continuing the case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Section 482 CrPC and the landmark ruling in Gian Singh, which held that inherent powers may be exercised to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice. The Court noted that while Section 3 of the Rajasthan Medicare Act is non-compoundable under its own provisions, this does not extinguish the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482.
"The power under Section 482 CrPC is not circumscribed by the compoundability of the offence. Where the parties have settled their differences and the victim has expressed willingness to forego prosecution, the Court must weigh whether continuing the case serves any legitimate public purpose."
The Court distinguished between statutory compounding, which is a procedural mechanism, and judicial quashing, which is an equitable remedy rooted in constitutional justice. It held that the compromise was genuine, not coerced, and supported by documentary evidence. The complainant’s consent, coupled with the absence of any public interest in prosecution, rendered the continuation of proceedings otiose.
The Court further observed that the offences involved were primarily interpersonal and did not involve heinous violence, public disorder, or systemic corruption - factors that would militate against quashing. In such cases, the Court’s role is to facilitate closure, not perpetuate litigation.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court quashed FIR No. 0244/2019 and all proceedings arising therefrom. It held that the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC permits quashing of proceedings for non-compoundable offences upon a bona fide compromise, provided no overriding public interest opposes it.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Can Override Statutory Non-Compoundability
- Practitioners may now file Section 482 CrPC petitions even for offences barred from compounding under special statutes
- Documentary proof of compromise (deeds, affidavits, victim statements) is critical to establish genuineness
- Courts will assess whether the offence is interpersonal or impacts public order
Victim’s Consent Is Decisive
- The complainant’s unequivocal withdrawal of complaint carries substantial weight
- Courts will scrutinize whether compromise was voluntary, without coercion or undue influence
- Oral assurances are insufficient; written documentation is now effectively mandatory
Judicial Discretion Must Be Exercise With Restraint
- Quashing is not automatic; courts must record reasons why public interest is not harmed
- This doctrine does not apply to offences against the State, sexual crimes, or corruption
- Lawyers must frame petitions around the Gian Singh test: ends of justice, abuse of process, and absence of public interest
