Allowed¶33

Ram Gopal and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC10 Feb 2026CRLA/864/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compromise-based quashing of conviction; post-conviction amicable settlement dt.15.01.2026 between brothers; acquittal on basis of compromise; exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS 2023; reliance on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (JT 2012 (9) SC 426); offences under Sections 452, 323, 325 IPC; Sessions Case No.5/2005, Fast Track Court Chomu; bail bonds discharged; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; single-judge order by Vinod Kumar Bharwani.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed on the basis of compromise; impugned conviction judgment dated 14.08.2006 quashed and set aside; accused-appellants acquitted of all charges; bail bonds discharged as sentences had already been suspended. ¶33

Ram Gopal and Ors. Vs State — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the compromise dated 15.01.2026 arrived at between the parties during pendency of the appeal, the criminal case against the appellants should be quashed and the appeal allowed resulting in acquittal.

¶21

Court's answer

When once disputes are settled by way of mutual compromise, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal case pending.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, this is a fit case in which the criminal proceedings/case pending against the appellants can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023.

¶31

Key takeaways

In view of the compromise, the Court deemed it just and proper to acquit the appellants of the charges and allow the appeal filed by them.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 864/2006, decided 10.02.2026 by Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani: Appeal under Section 374 CrPC against conviction by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chomu (Sessions Case No.5/2005, judgment dt.14.08.2006) of four accused under Sections 452 & 323 IPC, three of whom were also convicted under Section 325 IPC. During pendency, the parties (stated to be real brothers) compromised the dispute by compromise dt.15.01.2026. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (JT 2012 (9) S.C. 426), the Court held that once disputes stand settled by mutual compromise no useful purpose is served in continuing the criminal case, invoked Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023, quashed the conviction judgment, acquitted the appellants and allowed the appeal; bail bonds stood discharged as sentences were already suspended by a Co-ordinate Bench order dt.23.08.2006.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:6318]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 864/2006

¶4

Ram Gopal son of Shri Bheru Ram

¶5

Mohan Lal son of Shri Ram Gopa

¶6

Lal Chand son of Shri Ram Gopa

¶7

Gulli Devi wife of Shri Ram Gopa

¶8

All residents of Village Bagwada Police Station Harmada District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶9

----Accused-Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, Public Prosecutor Mr. Akhilesh K.Pareek, Advocate

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

¶15

10/02/2026 :

¶16

The present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by accused-appellants against the impugned judgment dt.14.08.2006 passed by the Court of ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chomu, Jaipur District, in Sessions Case No.5/2005, whereby the accused-appellants, namely Ramgopal, Mohanlal, Lalchand & Gulli Devi were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 452 & 323 of I.P.C. & sentenced to undergo maximum period of one-year simple imprisonment alongwith fine. The appellants, namely Ramgopal, Mohanlal & Lalchand were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. & sentenced to undergo maximum period of six months simple imprisonment alongwith the fine.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for accused-appellants contends that that the sentence, so awarded to the appellants was suspended by

[2026:RJ-JP:6318]

[CRLA-864/2006]

(2 of 4)

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dt.23.08.2006. Counsel further contends that during pendency of the present appeal, both the parties have entered into a compromise and the dispute between them has been amicably settled. Counsel also submits that since a settlement/compromise dt.15.01.2026 has been arrived at between the parties by mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the case against the appellants, as the same may derail the compromise arrived at between them.

¶22

On the last occasion i.e. on 30.01.2026, both the parties were personally present before this Court & submitted that the dispute has been amicably settled between them. Their signatures were also obtained on the Court's order-sheet and they were duly identified by their respective Counsel.

¶23

An application bearing Inward No.1/2026 dt.21.01.2026 has also been filed by the appellants praying therein that the present appeal may be decided in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶24

In the aforesaid application, it is pleaded that the appellants and the complainant are real brothers. Earlier, they had settled their dispute amicably & entered into a compromise, but the same was not attested. The parties have now again entered into a compromise on 15.01.2026. The alleged offences on which the conviction is based are compoundable, except for Section 452 of I.P.C. No offence under Section 452 of I.P.C. is made out against the appellants.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions made herein-above.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ respondent No.2 does not wish to continue the matter & has no objection, if the

[2026:RJ-JP:6318]

[CRLA-864/2006]

(3 of 4)

impugned judgment is quashed & set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them in terms of compromise. Having considered the overall facts & circumstances of the case & the submissions made at bar and looking to the fact that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that when once the disputes have been settled by way of mutual compromise, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal case pending.

¶31

Furthermore, keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, JT 2012 (9) S.C. 426, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings/case pending against the appellants can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023.

¶32

As per compromise dt.15.01.2026, the parties are not interested & willing to prosecute the appellants & do not want to proceed further in the matter. Thus, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court deems it just & proper to acquit the appellants from the charges & allow the appeal filed by the appellants.

¶33

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed on the basis of compromise. The impugned judgment dt.14.08.2006 passed by Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Chomu, Jaipur District, in Sessions Case No.5/2005 is hereby quashed & set aside. The accused-appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellants are not in custody, as their sentences has already been suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dt.23.08.2006. Their bail bonds stand discharged.

¶34

Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶35

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J.

[2026:RJ-JP:6318]

[CRLA-864/2006]

(4 of 4)

ASHOK/

Ram Gopal and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Gopal and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh S/O Devilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahadeva S/O Shri Pitam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Toni Alias Devendra Son of Shri Pradeep Vs State of Rajasthan

Monu Prajapati S/O Ramratan Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod S/O Shri Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Geeta Devi W/O Kanhaiyalal Vs the State of Rajasthan