SARLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this court by way of the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Sec. 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings of Sessions Case No.123/2016 pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan for the offences under Ss. 148, 326 and 307 of the IPC on the ground of compromise.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably by entering into a compromise and they want to bury the bitterness arose out of the scuffle between them. Prior to the incident, they were having good relations with each other and after filing of the case, a discord has taken place between them but now they have resolved their dispute finally and they are trying to re-establish their relations cordially for which a compromise has been entered between them and the same has been filed and verified before the Court below but since the offences under Ss. 148, 326 and 307 of the IPC are not compoundable, therefore, the proceeding has been kept pending and the trial has been commenced. Learned counsel further submits that prima facie no offence under Sec. 307 IPC is made out as the ingredients essential to constitute an offence under Sec. 307 IPC are not made out against them. To support his contention, he drew the attention of the Court towards the injury report of Dhanna Ram, who received 3 injuries, out of which one is wound on left temporal region and other two are simple abrasions. He submits that the accused-petitioners were having no criminal intent to kill the victim, rather the incident occurred in a spur of moment without there being any premeditation or pre-concert. He lastly submitted that had there been any intent to kill the victim, the accused who were large in number and allegedly having weapons in their hands and were in dominating position; could have inflicted more injuries on vital body part of the victim. Soon after the incident, the accused had left the place which further fortifies the plea that there was no intent of the accused-petitioners to kill the victim. Thus, prima facie no offence under Sec. 307 IPC is made out.

(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant does not refute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and verified the factum of compromise. He submitted that his party is ready and willing to drop the criminal proceedings and is eager to re-establish cordial relationship between them. Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the legal and factual aspect of the matter.