Rajasthan High Court rejects compromise | Locking of university gate deemed serious breach | FIR to proceed as per law
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered in connection with the alleged locking of the University of Rajasthan Administrative Block. The Court held that the compromise between the complainant and the accused persons lacked lawful sanction and therefore could not be accepted. Directing the police authorities to proceed further with the investigation strictly in accordance with law, the Court further ordered that measures be taken to prevent recurrence of such incidents which affect the public at large. The Court also directed transmission of its order to the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor and Principals of affiliated colleges of the University of Rajasthan.
The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita seeking quashing of FIR Number 224 of 2024 dated 20 June 2024. The FIR was registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar Jaipur East for offences punishable under Sections 143 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code as applicable under the new law. The allegations related to an incident within the University of Rajasthan premises.
According to the FIR lodged by a professor serving as Disciplinary In-charge, the accused persons, who were students or connected persons, locked the gate of the University’s Administrative Block. This act disrupted normal functioning and was stated to be unauthorised and unexpected. The FIR alleged activities that were not in consonance with acceptable conduct within the campus.
During the proceedings, the Court noted that the Vice Chancellor of the University had submitted through virtual conference that the FIR had been registered without obtaining prior sanction from competent authorities. Furthermore, the complainant had already superannuated and entered into a compromise with the accused persons in his personal capacity.
In this background, the petitioners sought quashing of the FIR on the strength of the compromise arrived at with the complainant. It was contended that the complainant had resolved the dispute and did not wish to proceed further. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that in light of this compromise, continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose and prayed for the quashing of FIR and all consequential proceedings.
However, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. It was submitted that the matter was still under investigation and one of the accused persons had already been arrested. The State submitted that the allegations involved disruption of public order and affected the functioning of the University and hence were serious in nature. The Police Inspector from Police Station Gandhi Nagar also marked his presence and stated that investigation was continuing.
The complainant marked his presence and submitted that the FIR was lodged without understanding the requirement of sanction from the University authorities. He assured the Court that such lapses would not be repeated.
After hearing all parties and recording the submissions, the Court proceeded to consider whether the compromise was capable of terminating the proceedings and whether the petitioners were entitled to the relief sought.
The Court recorded in detail the circumstances of the case and expressed clear observations on various aspects. It stated "The complainant herein is stated to be an ex-professor who at the time of incidence was the In-charge of Disciplinary Committee however had lodged the impugned FIR in ignorance of law without attaining requisite sanction from the competent authorities."
The Court further recorded "It can be deduced that the alleged offence is of serious in nature effects public at large moreover lakhs of students who are enrolled or connected from or with the said University." The Court stated that the nature of allegations breached public tranquillity and peace and created a negative influence.
The Court observed "The compromise is entered sans any appropriate lawful backing and the FIR was made to be registered in ignorance of law." It thus concluded that the compromise entered into between the complainant and the petitioners cannot be accepted or acknowledged.
The Court also recorded "It is informed that the investigation in furtherance to the impugned FIR is at a steady pace and as on date one of the accused is arrested." This indicated that investigation had advanced and proceedings could not be brought to a halt merely on the basis of a subsequent compromise.
Referring to the effect of the incident and the nature of allegations, the Court observed "The alleged offence per se breaches the tranquility and peace of society and gives a negative influence to the spectators." It stated that these allegations were of a nature which had large public ramifications.
Summing up its reasoning, the Court stated "The instant compromise cannot be affirmed and acknowledged by the Court or any other judicial body." Based on this finding, the Court declined the prayer to quash the FIR and dismissed the petition.
The Court concluded the matter with a series of definitive directions. It directed that the police authorities shall proceed further with the investigation strictly in accordance with law as deemed essential. Emphasising the need to address the broader implications of the incident, the Court directed that appropriate measures be taken to prevent such offences by persons like students, noting that the allegations in question leave a lasting impact on the public at large and are unwarranted and unauthorised.
The Court further instructed that the Registrar Judicial shall send a copy of the order to the Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan as well as to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan.
In addition, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan was directed to send a copy of the order along with categorical guidelines in this regard to the Principal of all the affiliated colleges under the University of Rajasthan.
Concluding its decision, the Court dismissed the petition, holding that the compromise lacked lawful backing, and ordered that all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr Dharmendra Fageriya Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr Rishi Raj Singh Rathore Public Prosecutor with Mr Manvendra Singh Shekhawat Public Prosecutor and Mr Ashutosh Singh Sub Inspector Police Station Gandhi Nagar and Mr H S Palsaniya
Case Title: Shubham Rewad and Ors versus State of Rajasthan and Anr
Neutral Citation: 2025 RJ JP 17049
Case Number: S B Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Number 1969 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sameer Jain
[Read/Download order]
