Continuation of trial for conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC would be futile when the accused had been discharged of all other offences and could not be punished for the conspiracy when they had been acquitted of the substantive offence.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of present petition, the petitioners have sought quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 48/2013 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in connection with FIR No. 172/2012, registered in Police Station Mahamandir for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and 4/5/6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banned), Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Chit Fund Act').

2. Shorn of unwarranted details, pertinent facts for the present purpose are that pursuant to the FIR, the trial Court took cognizance of the alleged offences.

3. During the course of the trial, the petitioners made payment to the complainant to his satisfaction, whereafter both the parties signed a compromise and placed the same before the trial Court.

4. The trial Court vide its order dated 24.03.2022 discharged the petitioners of the offences under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC and 4/5/6 of the Chit Fund Act, but kept the case pending for trial of offence under Section 120B of IPC.

5. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the trial Court has seriously erred in keeping the trial pending for the offence under Section 120B of IPC, particularly when the petitioners have been acquitted of all the other charges including the charges under Section 4/5/6 of the Chit Fund Act.

6. Mr. Solanki, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has no objection if the proceedings in question pending against the petitioners are quashed.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order impugned, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has fallen into an apparent error of law in keeping the proceedings against the petitioners pending under Section 120B of IPC.

8. It does not need any deliberation that Section 120B of the IPC does not provide punishment for a particular offence. It is rather a supplementary provision to indict a person even if he has remained catalyst or passive participant or has acted as conspirator or aid without himself committing the offence.

9. Sections 120A & 120B read thus:-

"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy-When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done-

(1) an illegal act, or

(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

Explanation-It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.

120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy-(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both]"

10. A careful reading of Section 120B(1) reveals that a person shall be punished for conspiracy in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. Hence, when a finding of conspiracy is recorded such person shall be punished as an abettor. According to Section 109, an abettor would be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Hence, when the accused have been exonerated or their offences are compounded in light of the compromise, obviously, they are to be discharged or acquitted. Therefore,