Post-conviction compromises cannot quash convictions for non-compoundable offences, reflecting the necessity of upholding judicial integrity and the rule of law.

JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.

1. Learned advocate Mr. Abhishek Khuman states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted.

2. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of Rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

4. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the proceedings of Sessions Case No.79 of 2004 passed by District Court, Amreli, dated 23.01.2008, which was initiated pursuant to the offence registered at Savarkundla Rural Police Station, Dist. Amreli, for the offence under Sections 307 and 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 135 of the G.P.Act.

5. After investigation, chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, which was culminated into Sessions Case No.79/2004. After hearing both the sides and after recording the evidence, learned Sessions Judge had been pleased to acquit the accused under Section 307 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, however, convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and ordered to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.25,000/- each, failing which, to undergo one year simple imprisonment. It was also ordered that from the total amount of fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.90,000/- shall be paid to the victim – Mukesh Lalji as compensation under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.

6. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the petitioners had preferred Criminal Appeal No.928/2008 before this Court. During pendency of the appeal, the complainant and injured son were expired, but respondent No.3 being brother of the complainant, had filed an application seeking enhancement of sentence. This Court by common order dated 19.07.2023 dismissed both the appeal as well as application. The said order of conviction was subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of filing SLP (Cri.) No.13158/2023. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 surrendered, whereas, petitioner No.1 applied for exemption (for surrender), which came to be allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. SLP was initially placed for admission hearing and thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court had been pleased to dismiss the SLP vide order dated 16.10.2023.

7. Heard Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. C.M.Shah, learned APP for the respondent State and Mr.Abhishek Khuman, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, during passage of time and as main members in both the family have expired, the parties have buried their grudge and entered into an amicable settlement. He has submitted that, both the injured had passed away and due to intervention of community people and elders of the society, it was decided to live peacefully rather than fight against each other. Therefore, present petition is filed for consent quashing. He also submitted that, both the families have started to visit each other’s house and even, they have attending small functions in their families. Even appropriate compensation is also agreed to give by the accused side to the complainant side.