State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor v. Connected

Lal Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Singh @ Rajjo R/o Peepla, Police Station Chiksana, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. (Presently On Provisional Bail For A Period Of 30 Days From The Date Of The Impugned Judgment Dated 07.08.2019)

4. Hari Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Singh @ Rajjo, R/o Peepla, Police Station Chiksana, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. (Presently On Provisional Bail For A Period Of 30 Days From The Date Of The Impugned Judgment Dated 07.08.2019) State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor Versus ----Appellants ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 1744/2019

1. Jitendra S/o Jagannath R/o Peepala, Police Station Chiksana, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Sever, Distt. Bharatpur)

2. Pramod S/o Daudayal, R/o Peepala, Police Station Chiksana, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Sever, Distt. Bharatpur)

3. Mukesh Chand S/o Daudayal, R/o Peepala, Police Station Chiksana, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Sever, Distt. Bharatpur)

4. Vinod Kumar S/o Daudayal, R/o Peepala, Police Station Chiksana, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Sever, Distt. Bharatpur)

5. Sohan Lal S/o Jagannath, R/o Peepala, Police Station Chiksana, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. (Presently Confined In Central [2025:RJ-JP:31349] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-1764/2019 & 1744/2019] Jail Sever, Distt. Bharatpur)

6. Chunni Lal S/o Jagannath R/o Peepala, Police Station Chiksana, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Sever, Distt. Bharatpur)

7. Jagannath S/o Gangabux, R/o Peepala, Police Station Chiksana, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Sever, Distt. Bharatpur)

8. Daudayal S/o Gangabux, R/o Peepala, Police Station Chiksana, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Sever, Distt. Bharatpur)

9. Dinesh S/o Daudayal, R/o Peepala, Police Station Chiksana, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Sever, Distt. Bharatpur) State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor Versus ----Appellants ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma, Advocate & Mr. Manender Singh Solanki, Advocate Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Advocate & Mr. Lokendra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor Mr. Himmat Singh Bikarwar, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 12/08/2025 : Matter has come up on two separate applications bearing Inward No.1/2024 filed by the accused-appellants under Section 415 r/w Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 in bot the appeals, praying therein that while taking on record the compromise dt.01.04.2024, the present appeals may be disposed of on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. The present appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been preferred on behalf of accused- appellants against the impugned judgment dt.07.08.2019 passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:31349] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-1764/2019 & 1744/2019] Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, No.4, Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No.11/2018 (119/2011) & 12/2018 (69/2010), whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 336, 324/149, 326/149 & 307/149 of I.P.C. & sentenced to undergo maximum period of three-years rigorous imprisonment with fine. Since both these appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment dt.07.08.2019, therefore, they are being disposed of together by this common order on the basis of compromise. In the present case, during pendency of present appeals, both the parties had entered into a compromise. The parties moved a compromise application through their Advocates before ld. trial Court for attesting the compromise for the alleged offences. The ld. trial Court, vide its order dated 26.05.2025 had attested the compromise qua the offences punishable under Sections 323 & 341 of I.P.C. but kept pending the trial for the remaining offences as the same are non- compoundable. Learned Advocates appearing for the accused-appellants contend that during pendency of the present appeals, both the parties have entered into an amicable settlement/compromise and on the basis of it, the ld. trial Court, vide its order dt.26.05.2025 had attested the compromise qua offences punishable under Sections 323 & 341 of I.P.C. Ld. Advocates further contend that since the compromise has been arrived at between the parties by way of mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial against the appellants for the remaining alleged offences as the same may derail the compromise arrived at between them. Ld. Advocates also contend that the present one is a case of version & cross-version and the matter pertains to year 2009. Therefore, the present appeals may be allowed, [2025:RJ-JP:31349] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-1764/2019 & 1744/2019] the impugned judgments be quashed & set aside and the appellants be acquitted from the charges levelled against them on the basis of compromise. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the submissions made herein-above. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case & looking to the fact that since the compromise has been arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal proceedings pending. Keeping in view the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another, JT 2012 (9) S.C. 426, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case, wherein the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants can be quashed while exercising powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023. As per compromise dt.01.04.2024, the parties are not interested & willing to prosecute the appellants & do not want to proceed further in the matter. The affidavits in this regard have also been executed by the parties. Thus, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court deems it just & proper to acquit the appellants from the charges while allowing the aforesaid applications bearing Inward No.1/2024 in both the appeals. Accordingly, both the applications are allowed and both the appeals are, hereby, disposed of on the basis of compromise. The impugned judgments dt.07.08.2019 passed by the Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, No.4, Bharatpur, in Sessions Case Nos.11/2018 (119/2011) & 12/2018 (69/2010) are hereby quashed & set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled [2025:RJ-JP:31349] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-1764/2019 & 1744/2019] against them. The appellants are not in custody, as their sentences has already been suspended by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its orders dt.22.08.2019 & 05.09.2019. Their bail bonds stand discharged. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK