Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1127 (RAJ)

Heer Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2023-05-17

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER 1. The instant revision petition under Section 397 CrPC read with Section 401 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 24.08.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal Appeal No.117/2021, affirming the judgment dated 14.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Original Case No.215/2011 (CIS No.4011/2014), whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced as under :- Offence for which convicted Sentence Awarded Fine imposed Default Sentence Section 457 IPC 2 Years' S.I. Rs.2,000/- 15 days' S.I. Section 380 IPC 2 Years' S.I. Rs.2,000/- 15 days' S.I. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 07.11.2011, one Kalu Singh submitted a report (Ex.P/1) to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sayla alleging that in the intervening night of 24.10.2011-25.10.2011, while all his family members had gone to perform some social obligation, some unknown persons entered his house, broke locks of all the rooms and took away gold and silver articles and cash amount, worth Rs.3,22,000/- in total. On this report FIR No.218/2011 for the offence under Section 380 IPC was registered at the Police Station Sayla. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC came to be filed against three persons including the present petitioner. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons for the above offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After full-fledged trial, the learned trial court acquitted accused Jalam Singh and Balwant Singh, but convicted and sentenced the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC vide judgment dated 14.12.2015, which was further affirmed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated 24.08.2022. Hence, this revision petition under Section 397/401 CrPC was preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a compromise -cum- affidavit of the complainant dated 15.05.2023, wherein it is stated that the parties have arrived at a compromise and the complainant does not wish to pursue criminal proceedings against the petitioner, therefore, the revision petition may be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for complainant does not dispute the fact of compromise and expresses his inclination for acquittal of accused on the ground of compromise. 5. 4. Learned counsel for complainant does not dispute the fact of compromise and expresses his inclination for acquittal of accused on the ground of compromise. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC are not compoundable, therefore, matter should be decided on merits only. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The fact of compromise is reflecting from the record of the case. The FIR is of the year 2011. The entire theft articles and money have been recovered. It is also appearing that the parties belong to the same village and relatives. They have decided to settle the matter out of court. Although the offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC are non-compoundable, but this Court is aptly guided by the pronouncement made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein it is propounded that if the parties resolve the dispute amicably and the matter does not pertain to breach of public peace and essentially, it is a dispute inter se/between the parties, then in such circumstances, with a view to establish harmony between two families, the proceedings can be quashed by the high Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In a recent judgment titled Murali Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No.24/2021), the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the quantum of sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone by them while considering the fact of compromise between the parties, inter alia other aspects. Whenever the fact of compromise is taken into consideration by the Court post conviction, discretion shall be exercised with caution and while considering the circumstances prevalent in the matter at hand. In the present case, considering all the factors, including the fact of compromise, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the revision petition. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed. In the present case, considering all the factors, including the fact of compromise, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the revision petition. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition is allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 14.12.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Original Case No.215/2011 (CIS No.4011/2014) as well as the judgment of appeal dated 24.08.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal Appeal No.117/2021 are set aside and the accusedpetitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. He is not in judicial custody. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged. 9. All pending applications stand disposed of.