Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ajay Sharma vs State on 5 October, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:33302]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1053/2018
Ajay Sharma S/o Shri Gurdayal Chand Sharma, Aged About 32
Years, B/c Brahman, R/o 1082, Lic Colony, Sri Ganganagar
(Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shah
Mr. Chakravarty Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
05/10/2023
1. The petitioner herein was convicted and sentenced for the
offences under Sections 406, 498-A, 323 and 377 of the IPC by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.1, Sri Ganganagar
vide judgment dated 04.05.2011 passed in Criminal Regular Case
No.647/2010. Being aggrieved of the said judgment, he preferred
an appeal bearing No.50/2017, which was partly allowed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar vide
judgment 05.09.2018, whereby the petitioner was acquitted from
the offences under Sections 406 and 323 of the IPC, however, his
conviction for the offences under Sections 498-A and 377 of the
[2023:RJ-JD:33302] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1053/2018]
IPC and the sentence awarded in the following manner were
affirmed :-
Offence for which Sentence, fine and default sentence
convicted
Section 498-A IPC Simple imprisonment of 2 years alongwith
a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment of fine, additional simple
imprisonment of 10 days
Section 377 IPC Simple imprisonment of 3 years alongwith
a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of
payment of fine, additional simple
imprisonment of 15 days
2. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner
has preferred the instant criminal revision petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties
have decided to settle the dispute amicably and thus, they have
arrived at a compromise. He has placed on record a compromise
deed - cum - affidavit, 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.
5. Learned counsel for complainant does not dispute the fact of
compromise and expresses his inclination for acquittal of accused
on the ground of compromise.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits
[2023:RJ-JD:33302] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1053/2018]
that since the offences under Sections 498-A and 377 of the IPC
are not compoundable offences, therefore, matter should be
decided on merits only.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
8. The fact of compromise is reflecting from the record of the
case. The complaint was registered in the year 2009. The matter
pertains to a matrimonial dispute. It is stated in the compromise
deed that a decree of divorce has already been passed on
17.07.2023 based on the compromise and all other cases between
the parties have also been decided. Now the parties have parted
their ways and wish to live peacefully. Although the offences
under Sections 498-A and 377 of the 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 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
[2023:RJ-JD:33302] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1053/2018]
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.
9. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The
judgment of conviction dated 04.05.2011 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, First Class No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal
Regular Case No.647/2010 as well as the judgment of appeal
dated 05.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.50/2017 are
set aside and the accused-petitioner is acquitted from the charges
levelled against him. He is on bail. He need not surrender and his
bail bonds are discharged.
10. All pending applications shall stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
103-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
