Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Saxsena vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:37749) on 11 September, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:37749]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6185/2024
Vinod Saxsena S/o Shri Prambihari Saxsena, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Near Nagar Palika Anoopgarh, Tehsil And Dist.
Anoopgarh, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Balvir Singh S/o Munsha Singh, R/o 4 K.a. Tehsil
Anoopgarh Dist. Anoopgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DL Rawla.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, PP a/w Mr. RS
Bhati, AGA.
Mr. Jagdish Vishnoi for R/2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
11/09/2024
1. Quashing of FIR No.374/2011 dated 01.07.2011, lodged at
Police Station Anupgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, for offences
under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 120-B of IPC, and further
proceedings in case No.75/2013 (CIS No.345/2016), is sought
herein, on the basis of compromise deed dated 17.08.2024 arrived
between the parties.
2. Complainant lodged an FIR against the petitioner and after
completing the investigation the final negative report was
proposed by the Investigating Agency before the learned trial
[2024:RJ-JD:37749] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6185/2024]
court. Learned trial Court examined the final report and took
cognizance on 08.02.2013 against the petitioner under Sections
420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Vide judgment/order dated
25.03.2015, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced.
Thereafter, on 18.01.2024, an appeal filed being Criminal Appeal
No.03/2024 before the Upper District and Sessions Court,
Anoopgarh. During pendency of the said appeals, the parties i.e.
the complainant and the petitioners entered into compromise
which was placed before the learned Sessions Court. However,
vide impugned order dated 28.03.2024, the learned Sessions
Court rejected their application for compromise on the ground of
being non compoundable offences. Hence, this petition.
2. My attention has been drawn to an order dated 28.03.2024,
vide which the learned Sessions Court noted that a compromise
had been arrived between the parties and the same was found to
be genuine. On the basis of said compromise proceedings under
Section 420 of IPC were dropped by the learned Sessions Court.
However, since some offences were not compoundable in nature,
the learned Sessions Court declined to drop the proceedings
against the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
matter can be compromised at any stage. He places reliance on
the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of
Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
[Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012, decided on 29.09.2021].
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the
complainant do not dispute the fact of compromise and don't have
any objection in view of the judgment, ibid.
[2024:RJ-JD:37749] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6185/2024]
5. In the case of Ramgopal (ibid), the Apex Court also
considered the judgments rendered in the cases of Gian Singh
Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [(2019) 5 SCC
688]. It is held as under:-
"11. True it is that offences which are 'non-compoundable'
cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise
of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the
court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of
Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature.
There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section
320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and
include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences
which have been consciously kept out as non-compoundable.
Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence
within the framework of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is not an embargo
against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, keeping in view the
peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable
reasons can press Section 482 Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.
12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of
the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their
dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification
of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise
of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the
offences are non compoundable. The High Court can indubitably
evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body
of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to
ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker
with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal
justice system.
13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-
heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a
private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial
has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against
conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of
delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is
always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that
the cases where compromise is struck post conviction, the High
Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in
view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in
which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard
to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct
of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for
[2024:RJ-JD:37749] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6185/2024]
exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and
fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do
substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead to rigid or specious justice,
which in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather
lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where
heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such
benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this
Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab4 and Laxmi
Narayan3."
6. Resultantly, in view of the compromise arrived between the
parties and invoking the inherent powers vested in this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 528 of BNSS, 2023), the
present misc. petition is allowed. Consequently, all the
proceedings against the petitioner emanating out of the FIR
No.374/2011 Police Station Anupgarh, District Sriganganagar and
leading to Case No.75/2013 (CIS No.345/2016), in which the
petitioner was convicted and Criminal Appeal No.03/2024 pending
before the Upper District and Sessions Judge, Anupgarh, District
Anupgarh convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections
420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC are set aside. The petitioner shall be
deemed to have been acquitted of the charged offences. He be set
at liberty, if not required in any other case. Their bail bonds stand
discharged.
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
79-/Jitender//-
Whether fit for reporting- Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
