Heer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4746 Raj

[2023/RJJD/015750]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1265/2022

Heer Singh S/o Bhawar Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Padru, P.s. Siwana Dist. Barmer.

                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                   ----Respondent



For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. S.K. Verma
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, P.P.
                                 Mr. Zafar Khan



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                      Order

17/05/2023

1. The instant revision petition under Section 397 CrPC read

with Section 401 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner

against the judgment dated 24.08.2022 passed by the learned

Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal Appeal No.117/2021, affirming

the judgment dated 14.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Original Case No.215/2011 (CIS

No.4011/2014), whereby the petitioner was convicted and

sentenced as under :-

Offence for which Sentence                     Fine                Default
convicted         Awarded                      imposed             Sentence
Section 457 IPC           2 Years' S.I.        Rs.2,000/-          15 days' S.I.
Section 380 IPC           2 Years' S.I.        Rs.2,000/-          15 days' S.I.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 07.11.2011, one

Kalu Singh submitted a report (Ex.P/1) to the Station House

[2023/RJJD/015750] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1265/2022]

Officer, Police Station, Sayla alleging that in the intervening night

of 24.10.2011-25.10.2011, while all his family members had gone

to perform some social obligation, some unknown persons entered

his house, broke locks of all the rooms and took away gold and

silver articles and cash amount, worth Rs.3,22,000/- in total. On

this report FIR No.218/2011 for the offence under Section 380 IPC

was registered at the Police Station Sayla. After usual

investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 457

and 380 IPC came to be filed against three persons including the

present petitioner. The learned trial court framed charges against

the accused persons for the above offences. The accused pleaded

not guilty and claimed trial. After full-fledged trial, the learned

trial court acquitted accused Jalam Singh and Balwant Singh, but

convicted and sentenced the present petitioner for the offences

under Sections 457 and 380 IPC vide judgment dated 14.12.2015,

which was further affirmed by the learned appellate court vide

judgment dated 24.08.2022. Hence, this revision petition under

Section 397/401 CrPC was preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a

compromise -cum- affidavit of the complainant dated 15.05.2023,

wherein it is stated that the parties have arrived at a compromise

and the complainant does not wish to pursue criminal proceedings

against the petitioner, therefore, the revision petition may be

allowed.

[2023/RJJD/015750] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1265/2022]

4. Learned counsel for complainant does not dispute the fact of

compromise and expresses his inclination for acquittal of accused

on the ground of compromise.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the

prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits

that since the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC are not

compoundable, therefore, matter should be decided on merits

only.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. The fact of compromise is reflecting from the record of the

case. The FIR is of the year 2011. The entire theft articles and

money have been recovered. It is also appearing that the parties

belong to the same village and relatives. They have decided to

settle the matter out of court. Although the offences under

Sections 457 and 380 IPC are non-compoundable, but this Court

is aptly guided by the pronouncement made by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab &

Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it is propounded

that if the parties resolve the dispute amicably and the matter

does not pertain to breach of public peace and essentially, it is a

dispute inter se/between the parties, then in such circumstances,

with a view to establish harmony between two families, the

proceedings can be quashed by the high Court while exercising the

[2023/RJJD/015750] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1265/2022]

power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In a recent judgment titled

Murali Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police

(Criminal Appeal No.24/2021), the Hon'ble Apex Court

reduced the quantum of sentence of the appellants to the period

already undergone by them while considering the fact of

compromise between the parties, inter alia other aspects.

Whenever the fact of compromise is taken into consideration by

the Court post conviction, discretion shall be exercised with

caution and while considering the circumstances prevalent in the

matter at hand. In the present case, considering all the factors,

including the fact of compromise, this Court deems it appropriate

to allow the revision petition.

8. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The

judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2015 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Original Case No.215/2011

(CIS No.4011/2014) as well as the judgment of appeal dated

24.08.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in

Criminal Appeal No.117/2021 are set aside and the accused-

petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. He is

not in judicial custody. He need not surrender and his bail bonds

are discharged.

9. All pending applications stand disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 10-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)