Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crlmp / 6479U / 2026Rajendra Pareek vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:23383) on 15 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:23383]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3613/2026
1. Rajendra Pareek S/o Natthamal Joshi, Aged About 60
Years, Resident of House No. 561, Hanwant-A, BJS
Colony, Jodhpur.
2. Bhooraram S/o Kishanaram, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident of Meghwalon Ka Bass, Village Pal, Tehsil and
District Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Prem Prakash Bansal S/o Jeevanlal Bansal, Aged About
65 Years, Resident of Shiv Sadan, Badipan Ki Gali, First B
Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Khichar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP.
Mr. Hemant Bithu (R/2).
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
15/05/2026
1. The present Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed challenging
the order of the Magistrate dated 23.03.2026 wherein, the
application filed by the petitioners for composition of the offences
punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code (for short, 'IPC') was partly allowed, allowing the
composition of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC,
while rejecting the composition of the offence punishable under
Section 120-B IPC while observing that the said offence is not a
listed offence given under the table of compoundable offences.
2. The brief facts reflect that the petitioners are facing trial for
the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. While
such proceedings are pending, the parties have settled their
dispute through a written agreement (compromise). They filed an
application for composition of the offences punishable under
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 09:46:29 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 09:08:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:23383] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-3613/2026]
Sections 420 and 120-B before the concerned Court. The main
offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is a compoundable
offence with the permission of the Court whereas, the offence
punishable under Section 120-B is not a listed offence in the table
given for composition of the offences, with permission or without
the permission of the Court.
3. The Court below considered the fact that the offence
punishable under Section 120-B IPC is not a listed offence under
the table given for composition of offences under Section 320
Cr.P.C. In this regard, Section 120-B IPC is relevant and it reads as
follows:-
"120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--(1)
Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable with death, 1[imprisonment for
life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years
or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made
in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy,
be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted
such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other
than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term not
exceeding six months, or with fine or with both."
4. On going through the contents of the offence, the
punishment which is prescribed under this Section is similar to the
punishment for abetment of the main offence punishable under
Section 420 IPC. Section 109 IPC is relevant in this regard and it
reads as follows:-
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 09:46:29 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 09:08:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:23383] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-3613/2026]
"109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted
is committed in consequence and where no
express provision is made for its punishment.--
Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is
committed in consequence of the abetment, and no
express provision is made by this Code for the
punishment of such abetment, be punished with the
punishment provided for the offence.
Explanation.--An act or offence is said to be
committed in consequence of abetment, when it is
committed in consequence of the instigation, or in
pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which
constitutes the abetment."
5. From the reading of the above provisions, if the offence of
abetment is committed and if no express provision is made for
punishment of such abetment, the punishment prescribed for the
main offence, shall be the punishment for the abetment offence.
This means that the punishment for the offence punishable under
Section 120-B IPC is the same as that which is prescribed for the
abetment of the said offence.
6. To answer the issue involved in the present petition, it is apt
to refer to Section 320 of the Cr.P,.C., which reads as under:-
"S. 320. Compounding of offences.-(1) The offences
punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code,
(45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the
Table next following may be compounded by the persons
mentioned in the third column of that Table-
TABLE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Offence Section of the Indian Penal Code Person by whom offence
may be compounded
———————————————————————————-
(1) (2) (3)
———————————————————————————-
* * *
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 09:46:29 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 09:08:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:23383] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-3613/2026]
(2) The offences punishable under the sections of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two
columns of the table next following may, with the
permission of the Court before which any prosecution for
such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons
mentioned in the third column of that Table-
TABLE
————————————————————–
Offence Section of the Indian Penal Code Person by whom offence
may be compounded
———————————————————————————-
(1) (2) (3)
———————————————————————————-
* * *
(3) When an offence is compoundable under this section,
the abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit
such offence (when such attempt is itself an offence) or
where the accused is liable under section 34 or 149 of
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be compounded
in like manner.
(4)(a) When the person who would otherwise be
competent to compound an offence under this section is
under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or a lunatic,
any person competent to contract on his behalf, may,
with the permission of the Court, compound such
offence.
(b) When the person who would otherwise be competent
to compound an offence under this section is dead, the
legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), of such person may, with
the consent of the Court, compound such offence.
(5) When the accused has been committed for trial or
when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending,
no composition for the offence shall be allowed without
the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as
the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard.
(6) A High Court or Court of Session acting in the
exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may
allow any person to compound any offence which such
person is competent to compound under this section.
(7) No offence shall be compounded if the accused is, by
reason of a previous conviction, liable either to enhanced
punishment or to a punishment of a different kind for
such offence.
(8) The composition of an offence under this section shall
have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom
the offence has been compounded.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 09:46:29 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 09:08:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:23383] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-3613/2026]
(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided
by this section.”
7. A reading of the above provision clearly demonstrates that
the Section 320(3) of the Cr.P.C. permits the compounding of the
abetment of a main offence or an attempt to commit such an
offence. However, the provision omits any reference to conspiracy
to commit the main offence. There appears to be no logical basis
for excluding conspiracy from the scope of compounding. The
offence of conspiracy is treated on par with abetment in terms of
punishment, yet this omission results in unequal treatment of
accused-persons charged with conspiracy as opposed to those
charged with abetment of the same offence. There is no challenge
to Section 320(3) of the Cr.P.C. As long as the provision remains
unchallenged, the Magistrate cannot be said to have the
jurisdiction to compound such an offence. The concerned party
ought to have challenged the provision itself, which has not been
done.
8. In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.,
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
the occasion to consider whether powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
can be invoked to quash a non-compoundable offence. In the said
judgment, it was held that where offences are essentially personal
or individual-centric, such criminal proceedings may be quashed.
In the present case, the offences are also individual-centric.
Therefore, the entire criminal proceedings relating to the non-
compoundable offences are liable to be quashed.
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 09:46:29 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 09:08:56 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:23383] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-3613/2026]
9. In the result, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
The criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 184/2015, pending
before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur, arising out of FIR No.
333/2011, P.S. Udai Mandir, District Jodhpur, for offences
punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC are hereby quashed.
The petitioners are acquitted of the said offences.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
1-Mohan/-
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 09:46:29 AM)
(Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 09:08:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
