Allowed

Satpal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Aug 2024CRLMP/5381/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous criminal petition, the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the quashing of the conviction of the petitioner for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act. Relying on the principle of post-conviction compromise established in Apex Court precedents involving offences of private nature, the court invoked its inherent powers to acquit the petitioner and set him at liberty.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and order dated 19.05.2022 convicting the petitioner is set aside; petitioner deemed acquitted and set at liberty.

Satpal Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:32996]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5381/2024

¶4

Satpal S/o Sh. Ladhu Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Chak 3, Rmw Post Chak 4 Dwm Teh. Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh. (Lodged In Sub Jail Nohar)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

1. Omprakash son of Devilal, resident of Ward No.11 Najdik Ambedkar Chattarawas, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. K.L. Vishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
	Mr. R.J. Punia, for respondent No.2- complainant

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Order

¶12

07/08/2024

¶13

Petitioner herein seek quashing, on the basis of compromise of impugned judgment and order dated 19.05.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Original Case No.88/2015, vide which he has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced for one year's simple imprisonment together with fine of Rs.3,70,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dispute between parties was of private nature and a compromise has taken place after the complainant secured conviction of the petitioner. He places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:32996]

[CRLMP-5381/2024]

Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012, decided on 29.09.2021].

¶19

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.

¶20

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:-

¶21

“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.

¶22

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.

¶23

13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving nonheinous 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

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:32996]

[CRLMP-5381/2024]

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 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 .”

¶28

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., the present misc. petition is allowed. Consequently, the judgment and order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 19.05.2022 in Criminal Original Case No.88/2015 convicting the petitioner for the offences under Section 138 of the NI Act is set aside. The petitioner, who is stated to be in judicial custody, shall be deemed to have been acquitted of the charged offences. He be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.

¶29

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶30

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶31

405-skm/-

¶32

Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No

Satpal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhapu Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Mahadev Iet and Tiles Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mariam Khatun Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Borana Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Jindal Vs State of Rajasthan