Rajasthan High Court
Suresh @ Tinda S/O Banshi Kanjar vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 November, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6004/2021
Suresh @ Tinda S/o Banshi Kanjar, R/o Kayanpuri, Police Station
Kekri, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.
2. Sayari Devi Wife Of Sanwata, R/o Kalyanpura, Police
Station Kekri, District Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Saadat Ali
For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahala, PP
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Mohd. Amar Joshi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
10/11/2021
1. Petitioner has preferred this misc petition praying that
Criminal Appeal No.86/2018(Suresh @ Tinda vs State of
Rajasthan) pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge
No.2, Kekri, District Ajmer be disposed of, in view of compromise
arrived at between the parties.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that compromise
has been arrived at between the parties which was produced
before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2,
Kekri, District Ajmer. The Court has compounded the offence
under Section 323 of IPC vide order dated 07.09.2021 but Section
326 of IPC is non-compoundable, hence, the same was not
compounded.
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-6004/2021]
3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Ramgopal
& Anr. Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal
No.1489/2012 which was decided by the Apex Court.
4. Complainant respondent No.2 alongwith her counsel is
present in court and has not disputed the fact of parties having
entered into compromise. She has no objection with regard to
disposal of appeal pending before the Additional District &
Sessions Judge No.2, Kekri, District Ajmer.
5. I have considered the contentions and perused the judgment
relied by counsel for the petitioner.
6. Apex Court in Ramgopal & Anr. Vs The State of Madhya
Pradesh(supra) was dealing with the case which is akin to that
of the present case wherein also the accused was convicted for
offence under Section 326 of IPC. In that case accused prayed for
compounding the offence and High Court denied the prayer. Apex
Court acquitted the appellant. The Apex Court also observed that
the High Court has inherent powers to compound the offence,
even in non-compoundable offence.
7. The Apex Court observed that offences which are non-
compoundable cannot be compounded by a criminal court in
purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
However, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within
the framework of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against
invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the peculiar
facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can
press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of
any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-6004/2021]
8. The Apex Court also observed that criminal proceedings
involving non-henious offences or where the offences are pre-
dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the
fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands
dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the
sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws
evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without
saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post
conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with
rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the
incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at,
and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence,
besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the
incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the ends of justice.
There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the
High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or
specious justice, which in the given facts and circumstances of a
case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in
cases where heinous offences have been proved against
perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended.
9. In a touchstone of above judgment, looking to the facts of
the present case, the incident took place back in year 2003 and
period of more than 18 years has lapsed since the date of
occurrence of alleged offence. The incident took place at the spur
of the moment and the injured sustained grievous injury. The
petitioner was convicted for offences under Sections 323 and 326
of IPC. Section 323 of IPC was compounded by the Appellate
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-6004/2021]
Court. The parties on their own volition, without any coercion or
compulsion, willing and voluntarily have buried their differences
and wish to accord a quietus to their dispute. The dispute took
place 18 years ago. Parties are residents of the same village and
quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony and
fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget and
forgive and have no vengeance against each other and cause of
administration of criminal justice system would remain uneffected
on acceptance of amicable settlement between the parties.
10. In view of above, misc. petition is allowed. Petitioner is
acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
11. Stay Application also stands disposed.
12. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
HEENA/133
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
