The inherent power under Section 482 of the Code could be exercised for quashing criminal proceedings even at the appellate/revisional stage in rarest of rare cases when found necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instance criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellants for quashing and setting aside of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.08.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court vide judgment dated 04.08.2023 convicted and sentenced the petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 452, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC. Against the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal which is pending consideration. Counsel submits that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners and complainant have entered into a compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat. In this regard, the complainant has also filed an application for compounding the offences. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioners’ conviction may be quashed and set aside and they may be acquitted for the aforesaid offences on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the respondent No.2 has no objection if the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Sections 148, 452, 323/149 and 325/149 is set aside.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the material available on record.

5. Admittedly, the parties have entered into a compromise and the question before this court is whether the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised for quashing of prosecution/ conviction upon compromise arrived at between the convict and the complainant.

6. In Khursheed and others v. State of U.P., Appeal (crl.) 1302 of 2007, decided on 28-9-2007, the appellants were convicted by Trial Court under sections 325, 323 read with 34 IPC. Their appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Court and revision petition was also dismissed by High Court. The convicts approached the Apex Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

[12]. An offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325 IPC is covered by sub-section (2) of Section 320 of the Code. It is thus clear that an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC is also compounded with the permission of the Court.

[13]. The parties have compounded the offences. As stated in the compromise deed, Gurfan Ahmad, complainant and his mother Kulsoom @ Bhoori (injured) did not want any action against the appellants (accused). The parties are neighbours, their houses are situated adjacent to each other and they have been living peacefully for last many years and there is no dispute among them. It is further stated that to continue sweet relationship and harmony, complainant side does not want to take any action against the accused. A prayer is, therefore, made to accept the compromise.

[14]. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and considering the Deed of Compromise and having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if we grant necessary permission for compounding an offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC as required by sub-section (2) of Section 320 of the Code. The offence punishable under Section 323 IPC has already been compounded by the parties.

[15]. Sub-section (8) of Section 320 states that the compounding of offence under the section shall have an effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. The resultant effect of compounding of offences would be that the accused should be acquitted. In other words, once the offences have been compounded and the requisite permission is granted by the Court, the accused must be acquitted.”

7. In Ravinder Kaur v. Anil Kumar, (2015) 8 SCC 286, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a matter arising out of conviction, permitted the compounding of offence under section 494 IPC.

8. In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, [2013 (4) RCR (Cri) 102], a Division Bench of this Court