Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2026 (RAJ)

Nema Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2022-07-14

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J 1. By way of present petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") by the petitioners against their conviction under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code per viam order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, District Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') with a prayer that their conviction be quashed on the basis of compromise. 2. The facts precisely narrated are that the petitioners were being tried for the above referred offences pursuant to an FIR that was filed by the respondent No. 2. During the course of trial, the petitioners and the complainant entered into a compromise and the same was produced before the trial Court, however, the trial Court refused to acquit the petitioners on the basis of compromise observing inter-alia that the compromise has been produced at belated stage and the offences alleged against the petitioners were non-compoundable. 3. Having refused to acquit the petitioners on the basis of compromise, the trial Court passed the judgment dated 11.01.2022 and convicted the petitioners for the above referred offences and awarded seven years' simple imprisonment while acquitting them of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Against the conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal has been registered as Appeal No. 2/2022. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner yet again moved an application for setting aside the conviction on the basis of compromise. 5. However, such request has been turned down by the Appellate Court vide its order dated 29.06.2022 observing that the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code are not compoundable. 6. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners and the complainant have settled the dispute amicably. Pointing out that the compromise was produced before the trial Court which acquitted the petitioners for the offences under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, however, refused to do the same for other accusation. He argued that complainant (PW-4) had turned hostile and thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the appeal. 7. Learned counsel argued that the dispute was essentially a civil dispute and prayed that the conviction be set aside. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have been convicted and their appeal is pending. He argued that complainant (PW-4) had turned hostile and thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the appeal. 7. Learned counsel argued that the dispute was essentially a civil dispute and prayed that the conviction be set aside. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have been convicted and their appeal is pending. He argued that at this stage, their conviction cannot be set aside even on the basis of compromise. 9. Mr. Nehra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 (complainant) accepted the factum of compromise having taken place and submitted that his client has no objection if the petitioners' conviction is set aside. 10. In support of contention that not only the FIR even conviction can be set aside on the basis of compromise, at appellate or revision stage, Mr. Choudhary, cited the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Unnikrishnan @ Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala, 2018 Cr. L.R. (SC) 275 and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Girdhari Singh and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 (1) R.Cr.D. 379 (Raj.). 11. This Court is of the opinion that petitioners' conviction made by impugned order dated 11.01.2022 can be set aside on the basis of compromise, as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 12. In view of the aforesaid and considering that the petitioners and the complainant have settled the dispute which was otherwise a civil dispute and considering that the petitioners and the complainant are neighbours/relatives residing in one village, it would be in the fitness of things to quash the conviction which would establish harmony between them and in larger interest. Same principles have been laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 and State of Haryana & Ors. v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604 . 13. The petition is, therefore, allowed. 14. The impugned order of conviction dated 11.01.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, District Churu in Criminal Case No. 325/2012 is hereby quashed and set aside qua all the petitioners. 15. Stay petition also stands disposed of.