Gabbar vs State Of Raj And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 166 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5414/2017

Gabbar S/o Shri Mool Chand Koli, R/o Karauli Kund, Alwar, Raj.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2.     Smt. Chameli W/o Shri Dal Chand B/c Koli, R/o Karauli
       Kund, Alwar, District Alwar, Raj.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gurvindra Singh, through VC. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP.

Mr. Suresh Dhenwal, for Complainant, through VC.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

07/01/2022

By way of criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been sought

for by the petitioner Gabbar who has been convicted by the

learned trial Court for the offence under Section 326 IPC and has

been sentenced to 5 years imprisonment along with fine. An

appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment and order of

sentence and the same is pending before the Additional Sessions

Judge No.3, Alwar. 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 24.08.2017 has been preferred on

behalf of the petitioner/appellant and the complainant victim

Chameli for disposal of the case on the ground of compromise.

The said application has been rejected by the learned Additional

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-5414/2017]

Sessions Judge vide order dated 19.09.2017 which is under assail

before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that

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

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

the society in any manner. They are neighbors and residing in the

same street, 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 326 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

appeal stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed on the strength

of compromise.

Mr. Suresh Dhenwal, counsel for the complainant victim as

well as of the injured Chameli, verified the factum of compromise

and submits that the parties are the close neighbors. 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 326 of IPC is not compoundable, however, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in Gian Singh

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-5414/2017]

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. Therefore, this will not

harmfully affect the society. This Court is convinced that 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 are the neighbors. They are living

peacefully and the complainant/victim 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 ACJM, Alwar in criminal regular Case No.

23/436/2003 vide order dated 31.07.2004 is quashed and set

aside; the proceedings of appeal before the learned ADJ No. 3,

Alwar in criminal Appeal No. 8/2011 titled as Gabbar Singh versus

State of Rajasthan and Ors. are directed to bedropped. The

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-5414/2017]

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

PREETI VALECHA /39

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)