1 - Mithlesh Pandaya S/o Late Vinod Pandaya Aged About 24 Years R/o Prabhat v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Basantpur District - Rajnandgaon
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13178 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 157 of 2025 1 - Mithlesh Pandaya S/o Late Vinod Pandaya Aged About 24 Years R/o Prabhat Nagar Ward No. 38, Lalbagh Thana Basantpur District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Basantpur District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) For RespondentState For Complainant : : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri T.K.Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.GA Shri I.Anurag Sonwani, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Judgment on Board 19/03/2025 This appeal arises out of a common judgment dated 23.11.2024 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge Rajnandgaon CG in Sessions Trial No. 101/2021 whereby the appellants have been held guilty of commission of the offence under Section 323/34 IPC (three counts) and sentenced him to undergo Simple imprisonment for one 2 month and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. 2. Prosecution story as revealed from the records of the case is that on 28.05.2021 at about 12.00 midnight, the complainant Prince Gosai was taking his friend Aditya Saudagar in his motorcycle to the hospital and while returning at about 1.30 midnight, they went to the parking place, at that point of time, suddenly they collided with Harsh Pandya, Ashish Pandya, Praveen Baghel @ Kadhi, Mithlesh Pandya and there was quarrel and maar-peeth between them. Thereafter, they threatened and took the injured persons and the complainant to an isolated building where Harsh Pandya stabbed with knife and the other accused persons assaulted with hands and fists as a result of which they sustained injuries. Report was lodged at the police station against the accused persons under Sections 294/34,365/34,307/34,201/34 and 323/34 IPC. After completion of usual investigation and recording diary statements, investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Sarangarh who, in turn, committed for trial. 3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 16 witnesses. The appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and they denied having committed any offence and said that they have been falsely implicated. 4. Learned trial court relying upon the oral and documentary evidence has held the appellants guilty of commission of the offence and sentence as described above. Hence the present appeal. 5. During pendency of the appeal, the complainant has filed application under Sections 320(2) and 320(5) of Cr.P.C seeking 3 permission to compound the offence and for letting off the appellant from the criminal prosecution. This court on earlier occasion had directed the complainants-Bhutanese Sahu and Prince Gosai to enter appearance before the Additional Registrar (J) of this Court for recording their statements. 6. Pursuant to filing of above application, vide order dated 18.03.2025 the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar (Judicial) / Additional Registrar (Judicial) of the Registry of this Court on 19.03.2025 for verification of compromise between the parties. 7. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, counsel for the appellant has made a prayer before this Court to accept the compromise and terminate the appellate proceedings in the present appeal. 8. A glance of Section 320 of CrPC makes it is clear that for compounding of the offence punishable under the IPC, a complete strategy has been provided thereunder. Section 320 (1) provides that the offences mentioned in the table provided thereunder can be compounded by the persons mentioned in Column No.3 of the said table. Further, sub-section (2) provides that, the offences mentioned in the table could be compounded by the victim with the permission of the Court. Sub-section (9) specifically provides that "no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section." Section 320 (8) of CrPC envisages that the composition of offence under this Section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. 4 9. In the case at hand, the appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Sectio323/34 of IPC on three counts. 10. The offence under Section 323 of IPC is compoundable in nature even without permission of the Court and as a compromise has already been arrived at between the parties in the instant case under which the complainant and the injured does not want any action against the appellant herein, therefore, in light of compromise between the parties, the offence under Section 323 of IPC is compounded and resultantly, the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 323/34 of IPC. 18. Perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the trial Court has elaborately discussed and scrutinized the evidence produced by the prosecution. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the the provisions of section 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C held that the compounding was permitted in a non-compoundable offence. Relevant part of the order of the order reads as under :- They are different "Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of and not offence. interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for 5 quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment.” 12. In the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law and the statement made by the complaint and the injured, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending as the parties have amicably settled the matter and they are friends and belong to same locality. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges in view of the compromise between the parties and he shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 13.
Decision
Accordingly, present appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.25 16:11:01 +0530