Vijendra vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6758 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:27707]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1287/2019

1. Vijendra S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Hukma Ka Bas, Tehsil Chidava, District Jhunjhunu.

2. Rajendra S/o Mahaveer, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Jat, R/ o Hukma Ka Bas, Tehsil Chidava, District Jhunjhunu.

3. Santosh W/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 57 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Hukma Ka Bas, Tehsil Chidava, District Jhunjhunu.

4. Mahaveer S/o Kana Ram, Aged About 77 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Hukma Ka Bas, Tehsil Chidava, District Jhunjhunu.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Smt. Krishna W/o Virendra D/o Jai Narayan, By Caste Jat, R/o Neshal Chhoti, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, P.P.



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

02/09/2023

1. By way of the instant revision petition challenge is made to the

judgment dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge No.2, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Appeal No.53/2017, who

affirming the judgment dated 19.05.2017 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Case No.68/2011,

whereby the learned trial court convicted the petitioners for the

offences under Section 498-A & 406 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have

decided to settle the dispute amicably and have arrived at a

[2023:RJ-JD:27707] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1287/2019]

compromise. He has placed on record the compromise deed dated

27.08.2019, wherein it is stated that the parties have arrived at a

compromise and the complainant does not wish to pursue criminal

proceedings against the petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the

revision petition may be allowed and the criminal proceedings against

the petitioners may be put to an end and they may be acquitted from

all the charges.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer

made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that since the

offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is not listed as a compoundable

offence under Section 320 of the CrPC, therefore, matter should be

decided on merits only.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

5. The fact of compromise is reflecting from the record of the case.

The FIR is of the year 2010. The matter pertains to a matrimonial

dispute and it appears that with passage of time, the terms between the

parties have improved and thus, they have have decided to settle the

matter out of court. Although the offence under Sections 498-A of

the IPC is 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,

[2023:RJ-JD:27707] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1287/2019]

the proceedings can be quashed by the high Court while exercising the

power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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.

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

judgment of conviction dated 19.05.2017 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Case No.68/2011 as well

as the judgment of appeal dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Rajgarh, District Churu in Criminal Ap-

peal No.53/2017 are set aside and the accused-petitioners are acquit-

ted from the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. They

need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged.

10. All pending applications stand disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J

94-Taruna/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)