Allowed

Somdutt S/O Shri Biharilal, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2024CRLMP/7449/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash the conviction and sentence of five petitioners and pending criminal appeal proceedings. The Court exercised inherent powers to quash the proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on a settlement between parties in a land dispute. The Court reappraised the non-compoundable convictions. Safety precautions. Habitual

What the court decided

AI extract

Somdutt S/O Shri Biharilal, Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50375]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7449/2024

¶4

Somdutt S/o Shri Biharilal, R/o Nand Nagar, Beawar, Police Station Beawar City, District Ajmer.

¶5

Jagdish Swaroop S/o Shri Gheesalal, R/o Juniyan, At Present Indira Colony, Kekri, District Ajmer.

¶6

Mahaveer Prasad S/o Balu, R/o Juniyan, Police Station Kekri District Ajmer.

¶7

Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Bihari Lal, R/o Rajasthan Bhojnalaya, Kekri, Police Station Kekri, District Ajmer.

¶8

Kailash Swaroop S/o Shri Gheesa Lal, R/o Bohara Colony, Kekri, Police Station Kekri, District Ajmer.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Represented Through Public Prosecutor.

¶12

Mod Singh Ranawat S/o Shri Moti Singh Ranawat, R/o Jagdish Colony, Kekri, District Ajmer.

¶13

Laxman Singh S/o Shri Samunder Singh, R/o New Shastri Nagar Colony, Pratap Nagar, Kekri, District Ajmer.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Vijayant Nirwan, Adv. ] for the complainant.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶17

Order

¶18

06/12/2024

¶19

By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, the accused-petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.06.2015 passed by Additional

[2024:RJ-JP:50375]

[CRLMP-7449/2024]

(2 of 6)

Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kekri, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') and the proceedings pending before the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Kekari (Ajmer) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.41/2015 on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶24

Mr. A. K. Gupta, the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of petitioners submitted that the trial Court vide judgment dated 09.06.2015 convicted and sentenced the petitioners for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. Against the said conviction and sentence, the petitioners have filed an appeal before the Appellate Court. Learned counsel also submitted that during pendency of the criminal appeal, both the parties i.e. petitioners and complainants have entered into a compromise and they filed a joint application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. before the learned Appellate Court for compounding of the aforesaid offences. It was also submitted that the learned Appellate Court partly allowed the application vide order dated 22.10.2024 and acquitted the petitioners from the offence under Section 420 IPC being the said offence as compoundable, but the prayer with respect to offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC was refused, as the same are not compoundable.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that in these circumstances, as the parties have settled their dispute amicably and a compromise deed had already been filed before the learned Appellate Court, therefore, the conviction be set aside and the criminal proceedings be also quashed and set aside.

[2024:RJ-JP:50375]

[CRLMP-7449/2024]

(3 of 6)

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has no objection if the conviction of the petitioners for the aforesaid offences is set aside.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that they have illegally encroached the public land and forged certain documents for which they were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. He also submitted that the matter is related to public land of Nagar Palika, Kekari and offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC are not compoundable, therefore, the conviction should not be set aside only on the basis of compromise.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. So far as the quashing of criminal proceedings in noncompoundable offences on the basis of compromise is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs . State of Punjab & Anr reported in 2012 Cr.L.J .(SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ], has held that the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, although the offences are not compoundable.

¶32

In another judgment Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2021 Live Law (SC) 516] , has held that the High Court can quash the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the parties have amicably settled their dispute and

[2024:RJ-JP:50375]

[CRLMP-7449/2024]

(4 of 6)

even after the judgment of trial Court convicting the accusedpersons for the offences, which are not compoundable. The relevant paras are quoted below :

¶37

“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.

¶38

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 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 extra-ordinary 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 & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.³ and Laxmi Narayan (Supra). ”

[2024:RJ-JP:50375]

[CRLMP-7449/2024]

(5 of 6)

So far as the contention of learned Public Prosecutor regarding the nature of offences against the petitioners in respect of public land is concerned, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that in another proceeding a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 203 (1) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act was launched against the petitioners for the same disputed land, which has been involved in the instant case. However, after completion of trial of regular criminal case No.85/2004 (141/2009), learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kekari, District Ajmer has acquitted the petitioners vide order dated 28.01.2013, as they were not found involved in any act of encroachment of public land of Nagar Palika, Kekari. Learned counsel also submitted that an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.63/2018 (308/2014) was filed by the Nagar Palika, Kekari against the petitioners Jagdish Swaroop and others, but the same was withdrawn by the counsel for the Nagar Palika, Kekari against the accused-petitioners and thus, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 29.09.2023. The judgment of acquittal has attained finality. Learned counsel further submitted that this matter is not regarding any encroachment over the public land. Hence, in these circumstances the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition to quash the conviction of the petitioners and they may be acquitted for the aforesaid offences on the ground that the parties have resolved this dispute amicably.

¶43

Copies of the order dated 28.01.2013 and order dated 29.09.2023 are taken on record.

[2024:RJ-JP:50375]

[CRLMP-7449/2024]

(6 of 6)

Admittedly, the parties have entered into a compromise and after filing an application along with compromise deed, the learned Appellate Court have acquitted the petitioners from the offence under Section 420 IPC, as the said offence being compoundable, but the prayer in respect of offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC was refused, as the same are non-compoundable.

¶48

In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made available for my perusal; considering that the dispute which is essentially a land related dispute between the parties, which has been resolved amicably, and in the light of the aforesaid judicial precedents, this Court feels that in order to establish harmony between the petitioners and the complainants and give quietus to the litigation, it would be expedient that the impugned proceedings are quashed.

¶49

In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 09.06.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kekri, District Ajmer is hereby quashed qua the petitioners and the criminal proceedings pending in Criminal Appeal No.41/2015 before the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Kekri, District Ajmer are also quashed and set side qua the petitioners. Consequence to follow.

¶50

The stay application also stands disposed of.

¶51

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶52

A.ARORA /-101

Somdutt S/O Shri Biharilal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Somdutt S/O Shri Biharilal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Raj Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bheem Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Raghuveer Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mustak Mohammad S/O Najar Mohammad, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu Ali S/O Munna Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Mittal S/O Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Gupta, Vs State of Rajasthan