Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Gabbar vs State Of Raj And Anr on 7 January, 2022
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5414/2017
Gabbar S/o Shri Mool Chand Koli, R/o Karauli Kund, Alwar, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
2. Smt. Chameli W/o Shri Dal Chand B/c Koli, R/o Karauli
Kund, Alwar, District Alwar, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gurvindra Singh, through VC. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, PP.
Mr. Suresh Dhenwal, for Complainant, through VC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 07/01/2022 By way of criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been sought for by the petitioner Gabbar who has been convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 326 IPC and has been sentenced to 5 years imprisonment along with fine. An appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment and order of sentence and the same is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Alwar. The sentence passed by the learned trial Court has been suspended by the learned Appellate Court by resorting to Section 389 Cr.P.C. During the course of the proceeding of appeal, an application dated 24.08.2017 has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner/appellant and the complainant victim Chameli for disposal of the case on the ground of compromise. The said application has been rejected by the learned Additional (Downloaded on 12/01/2022 at 09:39:59 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5414/2017] Sessions Judge vide order dated 19.09.2017 which is under assail before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that since the matter is exclusively inter se in between the parties i.e the accused-victim and the complainant, the same does not affect the society in any manner. They are neighbors and residing in the same street, therefore, with a view to maintain harmony among the society, in their relationship and for the permanent resolution of dispute, the conviction and the entire criminal proceedings pending against the appellant deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made on the ground that neither Section 326 IPC is compoundable nor the same is pending trial. Since the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed after rigorous trial, therefore, at the appeal stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed on the strength of compromise.
Mr. Suresh Dhenwal, counsel for the complainant victim as well as of the injured Chameli, verified the factum of compromise and submits that the parties are the close neighbors. They have settled all their disputes amicably and have forgotten the shades of untoward incident,therefore, with a view to maintain harmonious relationship in between the parties, the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.
Heard.
Perused the material available on record. Though the offence under Section 326 of IPC is not compoundable, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in Gian Singh (Downloaded on 12/01/2022 at 09:39:59 PM) (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5414/2017] versus State of Punjab has propounded that even when the offences are not compoundable, the High Court while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceeding with a view to maintain harmony in between the parties if the dispute is essentially inter se between the parties and does not affect the society at large and where the offence in which the conviction has been awarded; does not involve case of moral turpitude, rape, murder, dacoity etc. Therefore, this will not harmfully affect the society. This Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and do not affect public peace or tranquility and feels that quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would secure the ends of justice. The appellant and the victim are the neighbors. They are living peacefully and the complainant/victim has no grievance against the appellant if he is acquitted on the strength of compromise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav and Ors. versus State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court Page 3055 has allowed the compromise even after the conviction, at the stage of appeal.
In this view of the matter, considering the submissions, the legal position and the affidavit of the complainant and victim regarding quashing of proceedings, I deem it appropriate to allow the instant criminal misc. petition.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by ACJM, Alwar in criminal regular Case No. 23/436/2003 vide order dated 31.07.2004 is quashed and set aside; the proceedings of appeal before the learned ADJ No. 3, Alwar in criminal Appeal No. 8/2011 titled as Gabbar Singh versus State of Rajasthan and Ors. are directed to bedropped. The (Downloaded on 12/01/2022 at 09:39:59 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5414/2017] accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The bail bonds submitted by him under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are discharged.
The criminal misc. petition is allowed.
Stay application also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J PREETI VALECHA /39 (Downloaded on 12/01/2022 at 09:39:59 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)