Dal Chand vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9023 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2725/2022

1. Dal Chand S/o Sh. Keshu Ram, Aged About 47 Years, Sukher, Udaipur.

2. Laxmi Lal S/o Sh. Keshu Ram, Aged About 72 Years, Mehro Ka Guda, Udaipur.

3. Ramesh S/o Sh. Laxmi Lal, Aged About 50 Years, Mehro Ka Guda, Udaipur.

4. Dinesh S/o Sh. Narayan Lal, Aged About 42 Years, Sukher, Udaipur.

5. Heera Lal S/o Sh. Laxmi Lal, Aged About 45 Years, Mehro Ka Guda, Udaipur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Badri Lal S/o Sh. Shankar Lal, Behind P.s. Sukher, Dist.

Udaipur.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Deepak Menaria with
                               Ms. Khushoo Vyas & Mr. O.P. Godara
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
                               Ms. Deepika Purohit, for the
                               complainant



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

11/07/2022

1. By way of the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have challenged the

proceedings pending against the petitioners for trial of offences

under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2 of 4) [CRLMP-2725/2022]

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners are being tried for

the offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 149, 307, 147

and 148 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. During course of trial, the petitioners and the complainant

have entered into a compromise and the same was filed before

the trial Court. Considering the compromise, the trial Court per-

viam its order dated 22.04.2022, acquitted the petitioners for the

offences under Sections 342 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal

Code, however, refused to do the same qua offence under

Sections 147, 148 and 307/149 of Indian Penal Code as these

offences are non-compoundable.

4. Mr. Menaria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submitted that the trial Court ought to have acquitted the

petitioners for all the offences. Learned counsel prayed that this

Court has exercised its inherent power to quash the trial and

acquit the petitioner even in case of non-compoundable offences

in light of various pronouncements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

5. He submitted that even in case of offence punishable under

Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in

the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.

Reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that proceedings in case of

trial under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code can also be quashed

on the basis of compromise, however, after considering the nature

of injury suffered by the victim.

6. While inviting Court's attention towards the injury report, Mr.

Menaria submitted that all the four injured have turned hostile and

as per the injury report, all the injuries are simple in nature and

therefore, even offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code

cannot be said to be made out.

(3 of 4) [CRLMP-2725/2022]

7. Ms. Deepika, Learned counsel appearing for the complainant

submitted that her client would have no objection if the

proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed petitioners' prayer of

quashing the proceedings and inter alia submitted that the offence

alleged against the petitioners is a serious offence of committing

heinous crime punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

He argued that though the nature of injury is simple but one

injury which has been caused by the accused-persons on the head

of the injured is life threatening and therefore, the proceedings

may not be quashed on the basis of compromise.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

considering that all the four injured persons have turned hostile

and the nature of injury is essentially simple in nature, according

to this Court even if the trial continues, it would be very difficult to

ascertain that out of the five accused persons who had caused the

injury on the head.

10. Having regard the facts and circumstances and in light of the

judgment of passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303]

and State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal &

Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604] and Narinder Singh (supra), this

Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners because even if the trial Court continues, there is

hardly any likelihood of the petitioners being convicted in trial

when the injured persons themselves have turned hostile.

11. The petition is, therefore, allowed.

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-2725/2022]

12. The proceeding in Sessions Case No.53/2017 pending in the

Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases),

Udaipur is hereby quashed.

13. Stay petition also stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 38-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)