Sonu @ Banwari Goswami vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1243 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 471/2022

Sonu @ Banwari Goswami s/o Shri Mulgar, aged about 30 years, resident of Brahmsar,Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan.

2. Mukesh Kumar s/o Puran Chand, B/c Sindhi, aged about 45 years, r/o Ward No.11, House No.12, behind Gaur Dharamshala, Purani Abadi, District SriGanganagar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr Rakesh Matoria through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr Mahipal Bishnoi Public Prosecutor Mr Jafar Khan for complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Judgment / Order

27/01/2022

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer

has been sought by the petitioner Sonu @ Banwari Goswami who

has been convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under

Section 392/34 IPC and has been sentenced to 3 years

imprisonment along with fine; for quashing of the entire criminal

proceedings. An appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence and the same is pending

before the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh. The

sentence passed by the learned trial Court has been suspended by

the learned Appellate Court by resorting to Section 389 Cr.P.C.

During the course of the proceeding of appeal, an application

dated 18.12.2021 has been preferred on behalf of the

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-471/2022]

petitioner/appellant and the complainant Raju @ Rajesh and

Mukesh Kumar for disposal of the case on the ground of

compromise. The said application has not been decided yet by the

appellate court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that

since the matter is exclusively inter se between the parties i.e the

accused-victim and the complainant, the same does not affect the

society in any manner, therefore, with a view to maintain harmony

among the society, in their relationship and for the permanent

resolution of dispute, the conviction and the entire criminal

proceedings pending against the appellant deserves to be quashed

in the interest of justice.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made on the

ground that neither Section 392/34 IPC is compoundable nor the

same is pending trial. Since the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence has been passed after rigorous trial, therefore, at the

appellate stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed on the

strength of compromise.

Mr. Jafar Khan, counsel for the complainant verified the

factum of compromise and submits that the parties belong to

same vicinity. They have settled all their disputes amicably and

have forgotten the shades of untoward incident, therefore, with a

view to maintain harmonious relationship in between the parties,

the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside in the

interest of justice.

Heard.

Perused the material available on record.

Though the offence under Section 392/34 of IPC is not

compoundable, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-471/2022]

judgment rendered in Gian Singh versus State of Punjab has

propounded that even when the offences are not compoundable,

the High Court while exercising its inherent powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceeding with a view to maintain

harmony in between the parties if the dispute is essentially inter

se between the parties and does not affect the society at large

and where the offence in which the conviction has been awarded;

does not involve case of moral turpitude, rape, murder, dacoity

etc. except above proceedings, other non-compoundable offences

can be quashed on the basis of compromise as these type of

matters may not harmfully affect the society.

This Court is convinced that here in this case, the offences

are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or

tranquility and feels that quashing of proceedings on account of

compromise would secure the ends of justice. The appellant and

the victim belong to same region. They are living peacefully and

the complainant has no grievance against the appellant if he is

acquitted on the strength of compromise. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav and Ors. versus State of

Jharkhand and Anr. reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court Page

3055 has allowed the compromise even after the conviction, at the

stage of appeal.

In this view of the matter, considering the submissions, the

legal position and the affidavit of the complainant and victim

regarding quashing of proceedings, I deem it appropriate to allow

the instant criminal misc. petition.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in

criminal regular Case No.803/2016 vide order dated 29.01.2021 is

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-471/2022]

hereby quashed and set aside; the proceedings of appeal before

the learned ADJ No. 2, Hanumangarh in criminal Appeal No.

18/2021 titled as Sonu @ Banwari versus State of Rajasthan and

Ors, are directed to be dropped. The accused is acquitted from the

charges levelled against him. The bail bonds submitted by him

under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are discharged.

The criminal misc. petition is allowed.

Stay application also stands disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J c1-MMA/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)