Courts may quash criminal proceedings based on voluntary compromise, especially in non-heinous cases where societal harm is minimal, emphasizing justice and harmony between parties.

Order :

SANDEEP SHAH, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 30.10.2004, passed in Special Case No.13/2004 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sirohi, whereby, the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offences as under:-

2. Brief facts of the case are that P.W.-6 Prega Ram lodged a typed report at police station Abu Road regarding the agricultural land situated near Mahaveer Talkies, Christian Kabristan being Khasra No. 227 measuring 1 Bigha and 2 Biswa stating that on 19.8.2003, all the appellants entered in the said land and constructed iron shed on it. Upon asking them to remove, the quarrel started. When the incident was going on, Mahendra Heeragar and Gopal Koli were present on the spot. Subsequently, on this report, a case under Section 3(1) (iv) of SC/ST Act’ & Section 447 IPC was registered. The police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet. The learned Trial Court, after conclusion of the trial vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment impugned be quashed and set aside, as the same has been passed without considering the evidence available on record and without considering the fact that the appellants have failed to show any violation of the provisions of the SC/ST Act, and further, that there was no trespass committed by the appellants to warrant conviction. He further submits that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which itself casts a shadow of doubt with regard to the version of the prosecution. Not only this, the learned court below has failed to consider the documents placed on record by the defence to fortify the fact that the land does not belong to the complainant, and therefore, the offence under Section 447 of IPC and Section 3(1)(iv) of the SC/ST Act is not made out. He further submits that during the course of pendency of the appeal, the parties have entered into a compromise on 06.09.2024, and the same has been placed on record, which has been verified by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. He asserts that, as per the terms of the compromise, the complainant himself has given his consent for allowing the appeal. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment dated 30.10.2004, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Sirohi, deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the accused-appellants be acquitted of the offences in question.

4. Sh. Prashant Tatia, learned counsel for the complainant, fortifies the fact that a compromise has been entered into between the parties and asserts that he has no objection if the appeal is allowed on the basis of the said compromise.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that, though the offence under Section 447 of the I.P.C. is compoundable, the offence under Section 3(1)(iv) of the SC/ST Act is not compoundable. However, he further submits that since the parties have entered into a compromise, there is no impediment in allowing the appeal, and the factum of compromise can be considered even at this stage.

6. Heard the counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Though the offence under Section 447 of IPC is a compoundable one as per Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 3(1) (iv) of the SC/ST Act is non-compoundable in nature. For ready reference, Section 447 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (iv) of the SC/ST Act read as under :

“ Sect