Raman Lal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

It is stated at the Bar that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. It is borne out from the compromise that complainant is not inclined to proceed further in the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that compromise had happened between the parties during the course of trial but not accepted by the trial court and since the petitioner was not advised to challenge the proceedings, therefore, at appellate stage fresh application of closure on account of compromise was moved.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that during course of the trial on 17.09.2013, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the learned court below has discharged the petitioner of the offence under Section 420 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the nature of dispute calls for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings, in light of Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303 at the appellate stage also.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the dispute cannot be resolved at the appellate stage by way of a compromise. It is also contended that pleadings of the case are very poor, and that, the trial court has also awarded a sentence of seven years. Thus, at this stage, the case does not call for any interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

It is also submitted that upon the aforementioned compromise, the learned court below vide order dated 08.09.2018 has declined to accept and verify the compromise in relation to the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC on the ground of the said offence being non-compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C.

Looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the compromise between the same parties has been partly accepted at the trial stage itself, resulting into acquittal of the petitioner from the offence under Section 420 of IPC vide order dated 17.09.2013, but rest of the offences being not compoundable, have resulted into continuance of the trial thereunder followed by conviction of the petitioner by the learned court below vide order dated 28.05.2016, this Court finds that the said conviction was merely a technical conviction. Thus, having regard to the overall facts and the aforementioned position as well as the aforesaid order dated 08.09.2018 of the learned court below and applying the ratio in decision of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner is discharged of the offence under Section 467, 468 and 471 of IPC as well, in relation to Criminal case No.545/2012 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand.