Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nema Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 July, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4335/2022
1. Nema Ram S/o Lt. Balu Ram, Aged About 45 Years, B/c
Jat, R/o W.no. 37, Sujangarh, Dist. Churu.
2. Smt. Tulchhi Devi W/o Nema Ram, Aged About 40 Years,
B/c Jat, R/o W.no. 37, Sujangarh, Dist. Churu.
3. Mahendra Kumar S/o Bhoja Ram, Aged About 41 Years,
B/c Jat, R/o W.no. 07, Bidasar, Dist. Churu.
4. Ghisa Ram S/o Sunda Ram, Aged About 55 Years, B/c Jat,
R/o W.no. 07, Bidasar, Dist. Churu.
5. Pana Ram S/o Nema Ram, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Jat,
R/o W.no. 07, Bidasar, Dist. Churu.
6. Nand Lal S/o Mana Ram @ Magha Ram, Aged About 60
Years, B/c Jat, R/o W.no. 02, Bidasar, Dist. Churu.
7. Ratan Lal S/o Luna Ram, Aged About 37 Years, B/c
Nayak, R/o W.no. 37, Sujangarh Police Station Sujangarh,
Dist. Churu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Moola Ram S/o Lt. Balu Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Bhojlai Bas,
Purana W.no. 37, Bhojalai Road, Sujangarh, Dist. Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mool Singh Bhati, PP
Mr. Suresh Nehra, for the complainant
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
14/07/2022
1. By way of present petition preferred under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the
Code") by the petitioners against their conviction under Sections
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-4335/2022]
467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code per viam order
dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sujangarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as
'the trial Court') with a prayer that their conviction be quashed on
the basis of compromise.
2. The facts precisely narrated are that the petitioners were
being tried for the above referred offences pursuant to an FIR that
was filed by the respondent No.2. During the course of trial, the
petitioners and the complainant entered into a compromise and
the same was produced before the trial Court, however, the trial
Court refused to acquit the petitioners on the basis of compromise
observing inter-alia that the compromise has been produced at
belated stage and the offences alleged against the petitioners
were non-compoundable.
3. Having refused to acquit the petitioners on the basis of
compromise, the trial Court passed the judgment dated
11.01.2022 and convicted the petitioners for the above referred
offences and awarded seven years' simple imprisonment while
acquitting them of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian
Penal Code.
4. Against the conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal has
been registered as Appeal No.2/2022. During the pendency of the
appeal, the petitioner yet again moved an application for setting
aside the conviction on the basis of compromise.
5. However, such request has been turned down by the
Appellate Court vide its order dated 29.06.2022 observing that the
offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code are not compoundable.
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-4335/2022]
6. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners argued
that the petitioners and the complainant have settled the dispute
amicably. Pointing out that the compromise was produced before
the trial Court which acquitted the petitioners for the offences
under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, however, refused to do
the same for other accusation. He argued that complainant (PW-4)
had turned hostile and thus, no fruitful purpose would be served
by continuing the appeal.
7. Learned counsel argued that the dispute was essentially a
civil dispute and prayed that the conviction be set aside.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners
have been convicted and their appeal is pending. He argued that
at this stage, their conviction cannot be set aside even on the
basis of compromise.
9. Mr. Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2 (complainant) accepted the factum of compromise having
taken place and submitted that his client has no objection if the
petitioners' conviction is set aside.
10. In support of contention that not only the FIR even
conviction can be set aside on the basis of compromise, at
appellate or revision stage, Mr. Choudhary, cited the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Unnikrishnan @ Unnikuttan Vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2018
Cr.L.R. (SC) 275 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the
case of Girdhari Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in
2019 (1) R.Cr.D. 379 (Raj.).
11. This Court is of the opinion that petitioners' conviction made
by impugned order dated 11.01.2022 can be set aside on the
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-4335/2022]
basis of compromise, as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court.
12. In view of the aforesaid and considering that the petitioners
and the complainant have settled the dispute which was otherwise
a civil dispute and considering that the petitioners and the
complainant are neighbours/relatives residing in one village, it
would be in the fitness of things to quash the conviction which
would establish harmony between them and in larger interest.
Same principles have been laid down 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].
13. The petition is, therefore, allowed.
14. The impugned order of conviction dated 11.01.2022 passed
by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, District Churu
in Criminal Case No.325/2012 is hereby quashed and set aside
qua all the petitioners.
15. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
211-Arvind/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
