HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 491/2023

1.

Lilu Ram @ Leeladhar S/o Jisukh Ram, Aged About 61

Years, R/o Vill. Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District

Hanumangarh.

2.

Vinod Kumar S/o Leeladhar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o

Vill. Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

3.

Budh Ram S/o Leeladhar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Vill.

Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

4.

Subhash S/o Aadram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Vill.

Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

5.

Madan Lal S/o Madu Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Vill.

Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

6.

Shankar Lal S/o Lalchand, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Vill.

Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

7.

Dharam Pal S/o Lalchand, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Vill.

Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

8.

Dharam Pal S/o Budhram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Vill.

Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

9.

Sant Lal S/o Lalchand, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vill.

Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2.

Kaluram S/o Sohan Lal, R/o Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District

Hanumangarh.

3.

Ram Lal S/o Nathu Ram, R/o Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District

Hanumangarh.

4.

Shivbhagwan S/o Gopi Ram, R/o Aradki, Tehsil Nohar,

District Hanumangarh.

5.

Manju D/o Ram Lal, R/o Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District

Hanumangarh.

6.

Rampyari W/o Ram Lal, R/o Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District

Hanumangarh.

7.

Dharam Pal S/o Ram Lal, R/o Aradki, Tehsil Nohar, District

Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-491/2023]

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. G.R. Bhari

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP

Mr. Vipin Makkad

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

25/01/2023

The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioners against order dated 20.12.2022

passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2

Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.10/2015, who

whereby refused to attest the compromise for the offences under

Sections 452, 324, 326, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the matter has

already been compromised between the parties and it is borne out

from the compromise that respondents-complainants are not

inclined to proceed further in the matter. The appellate Court has

accepted the compromise in respect of offences under Sections

323 and 325 of IPC but refused to accept the compromise for rest

of the offences. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of

Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab &

Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. In these circumstances, criminal

proceedings for rest of the offences may be quashed on the basis

of compromise.

Counsel for the respondents No.2 to No.7 (complainants)

concurs the fact of compromise and submits that in view of the

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-491/2023]

compromise, the respondents No.2 to No.7 do not want to proceed

further in the matter.

In view of compromise arrived at between the parties and

applying the ratio in decision of Gian Singh (Supra), I deem it

just and proper to invoke inherent powers of this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed and the

order dated 20.12.2022 passed by learned Additional District and

Sessions Judge No.2 Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal

Appeal No.10/2015 is set aside to the extent of refusing to

compound the offence under Sections 452, 324, 326, 147, 148

and 149 of IPC and the said offences are hereby compounded on

the basis of compromise deed and the petitioners are acquitted

from the charges levelled against them.

Stay application also decided.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

29-Rashi/-