The court may allow a stay on conviction if the offense is of a private nature, lacks moral turpitude, and the petitioner offers reasonable compensation.

ORDER

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. At the threshold counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to compensate respondent-wife to a reasonable amount arrived at by the consent of parties or as ordered by this Court.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Government servant posted as Teacher Grade-II at Government Senior Secondary School, Gram Panchayat Damodara, Panchayat Samiti Sam, District Jaisalmer.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is suffering sentence of one year’s simple imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and the sentence awarded to petitioner has already been suspended by learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (i.e. appellate court) vide order dated 10.02.2021.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the so-called cruelty committed by petitioner neither falls under the purview of ’moral turpitude’ nor is having any direct bearing on his employment. Conviction upon matrimonial cruelty is a very personal issue involving husband and wife and does not have any adverse impact on the society at large.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that due to aforesaid decision by the trial court the petitioner will loose his job for none of his fault even if the appeal preferred by him is allowed belatedly. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s employer has already proceeded to terminate his service on count of conviction on 10.08.2021.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Pushpa Devi @ Rani Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Stay Petition No.417/2021) rendered on 15.07.2021, which reads as follows :-

"In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Balbir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan rendered in D.B. Criminal Misc. Stay Petition No.5252/2019 in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.136/2019 decided on 05.09.2019, relevant portion reads as under :-

"We have carefully gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for both the sides. Division Bench of this Court in Sushil and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan cited above had rejected the application moved by the applicant for suspension of his conviction holding that conviction could not be stayed on the ground that the applicant would lose his livelihood.

However, in the present case, facts are different. So far as applicant is concerned he was found innocent during investigation and was summoned by the trial Court under Section 193 Cr.P.C. Challan was presented against the husband of the deceased under Section 306 IPC and thereafter, charges were framed against the accused under Section 304-B IPC and 498-A IPC and in alternative under Section 306 IPC. It has been pointed that applicant does not have any criminal record. Applicant has been in service of Department of Telecommunications for the last 35 years. However, now applicant has received notice proposing punishment of dismissal on account of conviction earned by him in the present case. Sentence of the applicant has been suspended by this Court. In case, conviction of the applicant is not stayed/suspended, he might lose his job. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant will retire in July, 2020. Thus applicant is at the fag end of his career.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it would be just and expedient to stay/suspend the conviction of the applicant during the pendency of the appeal. Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant fails to advance the case of the compla