Rajasthan High Court
Laxmi Narayan S/O Ram Kishan vs Satate Of Rajasthan on 22 November, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1722/2020
1. Laxmi Narayan S/o Ram Kishan, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o Dholeta, Police Nadoti, District Karauli (Raj.)
2. Sanwaliya S/o Ram Kishan, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Dholeta, Police Nadoti, District Karauli (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Satate Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Kishori Lal S/o Shri Ramsukha, R/o Dholeta, Police
Station Nadoti, District Karauli (Since Died) Through His
Wife Kajodi Devi, By Caste Meena, R/o Dholeta, Police
Station Nadoti, District Karauli (Raj)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Agrawal for Mr. Vikram Singh
Chauhan
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Hem Singh
For State : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
22/11/2021
1. Petitioners have preferred this misc petition praying therein
that the compromise may be attested and the petitioners be
acquitted for offence under Sections 326 & 326/34 of IPC.
2. It is contended by counsel for the accused-petitioners that
there was a cross FIR filed way back in October, 2000. In cross
FIR, compromise was arrived at and the proceedings were
dropped. In the present FIR also, compromise arrived at between
the parties and the same was produced before the Court below
and Court has compounded the offence under Section 323, 341 &
323/34 is of IPC, but as the offence under Sections 326 & 326/34
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-1722/2020]
IPC were non-compoundable, the same were not compounded.
The Trial Court has convicted the present appellants. It is also
contended that the appeal against the said judgement and
sentence is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1,
Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.)
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 alongwith his counsel and injured are present in
Court and they have not disputed the fact that parties have
entered into compromise. It is also contended that the injury
sustained by Kishori Lal on his hand was a grievous injury, who
has expired after fifteen years of the incident.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. Petitioners and the injured are neighbours and resident of
the same village. There is a long pending dispute and the parties
want it to be resolved to maintain peace and harmony between
them.
7. 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.
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
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-1722/2020]
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 way back in the year
2000 and a period of 21 years has lapsed. Parties have amicably
settled their dispute and the proceedings were dropped. The injury
sustained by the injured was a grievous injury.
10. 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 21 years ago. Parties are residents of the same village and
quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony and
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-1722/2020]
fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to forget and
forgive and have no vengeance against each other cause of
administration of criminal justice system would remain uneffected
on acceptance of amicable settlement between the parties.
11. In view of above, misc. petition is allowed. Petitioners are
acquitted from the charges levelled against them. Proceedings
pending before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hindaun City,
District Karauli (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal No. 90/2017 "Laxmi
Narayan & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan" stands disposed.
12. Stay Application also stands disposed.
13. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
NIKHIL KR. YADAV /24
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
