SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Saleem Khan vs State on 20 March, 2018

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 297 / 2018
Saleem Khan S/o Late Shri Mobin Khan, Aged About 45 Years, By
Caste Mohammedan, R/o. Near Mataji Ka Mandir, Jagdamba
Colony, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.

(Presently Lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur).

The State of Rajasthan

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, PP.

For Complainant : Mr. Dinesh Kumar

By the instant revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C, accused-petitioner has challenged judgment

dated 23rd of March 2017 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No.6,

Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, ‘learned appellate Court’)

whereby learned appellate Court has affirmed verdict dated 20 th of

May, 2016 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur

Metropolitan, Jodhpur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) convicting

him for offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

Learned trial Court upon conclusion of trial indicted petitioner

for offence under Section 406 IPC and handed down sentence of

two years’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and in

default of payment of fine to undergo sentence for three months’
(2 of 6)

simple imprisonment. Likewise, while convicting the petitioner for

offence under Section 420 IPC, handed down sentence of three

years’ simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default

of payment of fine to undergo sentence for six months’ simple

imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Being aggrieved of the same, petitioner approached learned

appellate Court and the learned appellate Court upon re-

appreciation of evidence fully concurred with the findings and

conclusions of the learned trial Court.

The facts in brief giving rise to present revision petition are

that a complaint is filed by complainant against petitioner

attributing offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. In the

complaint, it is, inter alia, alleged by complainant that in lieu of

consideration of one plot bearing No.166 of Khasra No.92/2,

Hinglaz Nagar, Suthla, petitioner accepted earnest money to the

tune of Rs.2,50,000/- while valuing the said plot at Rs.25 lacs. It

is further averred in the complaint that after accepting the earnest

money, neither the amount was refunded by the petitioner, nor

requisite sale-deed was executed by him in favour of the

complainant. With the advent of time, investigation was carried

out in the matter and petitioner was charge-sheeted pursuant to

FIR No.31/2015. During trial, prosecution examined six witnesses

and also tendered some documents in evidence. Learned trial

Court after recording statement of prosecution witnesses,

complainant recorded statement of accused-petitioner under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. and finally convicted and sentenced him as

aforesaid. The effort made by the petitioner to assail judgment of
(3 of 6)

learned trial Court proved abortive and the appellate Court

rejected the appeal. Therefore, in that background, petitioner

has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after

verdict of the appellate Court, petitioner has sorted out his dispute

with the complainant and as a consequence of settlement of

dispute, a compromise is also arrived at. Learned counsel has,

therefore, submitted that in the wake of compromise, which is

presented before this Court and duly verified by Deputy Registrar

(Judl.), judgments of both the courts below are liable to be

annulled and the petitioner may be acquitted of both the offences.

It is also submitted by learned counsel that both the offences are

compoundable within the four corners of Section 320 Cr.P.C.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the

revision petition in general.

Learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. Dinesh Kumar,

while acknowledging the factum of compromise, has submitted

that now the dispute between the rival parties no more survives

and the compromise has been duly verified by Deputy Registrar


I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

written compromise.

Complete text of written compromise in vernacular reads as

under :-

(4 of 6)


eSa] xqyke nLrxhj iq dknj cDl th] tkfr eqlyeku] fuoklh
xqyhLrk dkWyksuh] iky] tks/kiqj ftls vkxs bl jkthukesa es izFke i{kdkj ds
uke ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk;sxkA
vki Jh lyhe [kku iq Jh ekschu mQZ eqchu [kku] tkfr eqlyeku]
fuoklh txnEck dkWyksuh] vk[kfy;k pkSjkgk ds ikl] tks/kiqj dks bl
jkthukesa es f}rh; i{kdkj ds uke ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tk,xkA
01- ;g gS fd f}rh; i{kdkj us eq izFke i{kdkj ds 2]50][email protected] izkIr
dj ,d IyksV fgxaykt uxj] lwFkyk tks/kiqj dk lkSnk r; fd;k Fkk
ftldh cspku jlhn esjs i{k esa fu”ikfnr dh FkhA ckn es ;g irk pyk fd
mDr edku igys ls gh fdlh vU; dk gSA ftl ij eq izFke i{kdkj us
f}rh; i{kdkj us iqfyl Fkkuk lnj cktkj esa ,Q-vkbZ-vkj ntZ djokbZ FkhA
ftlesa okn pkyku f}rh; i{kdkj dks rhu o”kZ dh ltk lqukbZ xbZ FkhA
ftldh vihy f}rh; i{kdkj }kjk djus ij vihyh; U;k;ky; us mDr
ltk dks cjdj j[kkA
02- ;g gS fd vc ge i{kdkjk ds e/; yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls
jkthukek gks x;k gS ,oa f}rh; i{kdkj us esjh lkbZ isVs jkf”k eqs ykSVk nh
gSA vc eq izFke i{kdkj dk f}rh; i{kdkj esa dksbZ jkf”k cdk;k ugha gSA
u gh fdlh izdkj dk eueqVko jgk gSA
03- ;g gS fd mDr jkthukesa ds vk/kkj ij f}rh; i{kdkj U;k;ky; esa
fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ izkFkZuk i izLrqr djrk gS rks esa izFke i{kdkj mlesa
iw.kZ lg;ksx d:axk o eqs mDr dk;Z esa fdlh izdkj dk mtz ,rjkt ugha
gksxkA f}rh; i{kdkj ds i{k esa U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj xokbZ nsus dks
Hkh rRij jgaqxkA
04- ;g gS fd izFke i{kdkj o f}rh; i{kdkj ds chp esa vkilh
lekbZl ls yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls jkthukek gks x;k gSA
05- ;g gS fd nksuksa i{kksa ds fo:) tks Hkh eqdnesa py jgs gS] os blh
jkthukek ls lekIr les tk;saxs rFkk dksbZ Hkh i{k dk;Zokgh ugha djsaxsA
fygktk ;g jkthukek ge nksuksa i{kdkjku~ us viuh jkth [kq”kh]
vdy gksf”k;kjh] fcuk fdlh u’ks irs] LoLFk fpr o rUn:Lrh dh gkyr esa
fcuk fdlh ncko esa fy[kr dj fn;k gSA tks lun jgsA oDr t:jr dke
bfr fnukad %
[email protected] [email protected]
gLrk{kj izFke i{kdkj gLrk{kj f}rh; i{kdkj**

There remains no quarrel that Legislature in its wisdom has

prescribed certain offences compoundable within the four corners
(5 of 6)

of Section 320 Cr.P.C. The offences which are compoundable are

mentioned in the table annexed to the section. Relevant part of

the table reads as under:-

Offence Section of the Person by whom
Indian Penal offence may be
Code applicable compounded

Criminal Breach of Trust 406 The owner of the
property in respect
of which the breach
of trust has been

Cheating and dishonestly 420 The person cheated
inducing delivery of
property or the making,
alteration or destruction
of a valuable security.

As per the table both the offences i.e. 406 and 420 IPC are

compoundable with the permission of the Court.

In view of the fact that both petitioner and complainant are

residents of Jodhpur and have sorted out their dispute inspired by

concept of Lok Adalat and both of them want to live in peace, I

feel inclined to exercise power under sub-section (6) of Section

320 Cr.P.C. for allowing the complainant to compound offence

under both these sections.

The settlement of dispute between rival parties having come

to an offing during pendency of the revision petition after a lapse

of more than three years and during that period investigation was

carried out and trial conducted and so also the learned appellate

Court made endeavour to examine the matter. Therefore, looking

to the indolence or dormancy of rival parties in sorting out their
(6 of 6)

dispute, it would be just and appropriate to saddle the accused-

petitioner with some pecuniary damages in the form of

contribution to legal aid, which may be provided to an accused

having no sufficient means to engage a lawyer or pleader for his


Considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case

and the criminal delinquencies of the petitioner, it would be

appropriate to direct him to contribute a sum of Rs.10,000/-

towards legal aid and he is directed to deposit the said amount

with Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within a period of

fortnight from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The upshot of above discussion is that instant revision is

allowed and the impugned judgments of both the Courts below

are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offences under

Sections 406 and 420 IPC and is ordered to be set at liberty if not

required in any other case subject to his depositing the requisite

amount within the stipulated period with the Rajasthan Legal

Services Authority.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation