Naveen And Ors vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 7939 Raj

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1014/2015

Banti @ Preetam Singh And Anr.
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
State
                                                                    ----Respondent
                      Connected With
             S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 995/2015
Naveen And Ors.
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                       Versus
State
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Ram Singh Rawal
                                   Mr. Narendra Khatri
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP
                                   Mr. Subham Soni



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                        Order

26/05/2022

     Counsel for the complainant & the appellant(s) submits that

there is a formal compromise on record. They have relied upon

the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramgopal & Anr. Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012,

decided on 29.09.2021); relevant portion of which reads as

follows :-


     "19. We thus sumup and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where
     the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in
     respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the
     extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
     or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be
     invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless,
     we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised
     carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:

                        (Downloaded on 27/05/2022 at 08:50:04 PM)
                                            (2 of 3)                    [CRLA-1014/2015]

     (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii)
     Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise
     between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused
     persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or
     other relevant considerations.
     20. Having appraised the aforestated parameters and weighing upon the
     peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are
     inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal
     proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals.
     We say so for the reasons that:
     Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be categorized as
     purely personal or having overtones of criminal proceedings of private
     nature;
     Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the Appellants have
     been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or
     commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which
     would override public interest;

     Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is immaterial that
     the trial against the Appellants had been concluded or their appeal(s)
     against conviction stand dismissed; Fourthly, the parties on their own
     volition, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily
     have buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their
     dispute(s); Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back
     in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on record to
     evince that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward
     incident transpired between the parties;

     Sixthly, since the Appellants and the complainant(s) are residents of the
     same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of criminal
     proceedings will advance peace, harmony, and fellowship amongst the
     parties who have decided to forget and forgive any illwill and have no
     vengeance against each other; and

     Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal justice system would
     remain uneffected on acceptance of the amicable settlement between the
     parties and/or resultant acquittal of the Appellants; more so looking at their
     present age. "


     This Court finds that a compromise duly attested by Notary

Public and issued on stamp-paper of Rs.500/- is there on record

and the complainant-party is also represented by its counsel.



                        (Downloaded on 27/05/2022 at 08:50:04 PM)
                                                                                (3 of 3)                     [CRLA-1014/2015]



                                         Taking      into   consideration          nature       of      injuries   and   the

                                   compromise arrived at between the parties i.e. the complainant-

                                   victim and accused, this Court is inclined to accept the same.

                                         Both the appeals are allowed.

                                         The    impugned         judgment         dated      08.10.2015        passed    by

                                   learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases),

                                   Udaipur in Sessions Case No.36/2015 is quashed and set aside

                                   and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against

                                   them.

                                                                     (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

89-90 Sanjay/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)