Singhal, Mr. Preet Singh, Ms. Khushi Thawal, Advocates with v. STATE

Through: Ms.Shubhi Gupta, APP for State with SI Lokesh Kumar PS Govind Puri Ms. Yoshita Khullar, Advocate with complainant in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred to assail and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.11.2017 and order on sentence dated 28.11.2017. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default whereof, he was to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for a period of 1 month. The sentence of the appellant was suspended by this Court on

03.01.2018.

2. At the outset, learned counsels for the parties state that the parties have entered into a settlement and in this regard, an application bearing CRL.A. 1/2018 1 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANOJ KUMAR OHRI Signing Date:29.09.2025 17:12:14 CRL.M.A. 29448/2025 has been filed vide which the compromise deed dated 24.09.2025 has been placed on record, supported by the affidavit of the complainant/victim stating therein that the complainant has already compromised the matter with the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant prays that in view of the above, the offence be compounded.

3. The complainant/victim is present in person and affirms to the factum of arriving at a settlement with the appellant and submits that he has no objection in case the offence is compounded.

4. In the present case, FIR No. 387/2014 came to be registered under Section 324 IPC at P.S. Govindpuri wherein it was recorded that on

09.04.2014, the appellant and the injured victim/sonu had an altercation over calling each other names, whereafter the appellant went to his house and took out a knife and in the ensuing altercation, inflicted a knife injury on his person. Trial Court, after analysing the testimonies and the evidence placed on record, convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC.

5. Pertinently, Section 324 IPC is non-compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, the power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in matters wherein non-compoundable offences are involved is well recognized. The Supreme Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana1 observed that Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit or control the powers vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and that the High Court is empowered to quash criminal proceedings/FIR, even if non- compoundable offences are involved. The inherent power of the Court power is of wide plenitude with no prescribed statutory limitation but it has to be exercised judiciously to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse CRL.A. 1/2018 2 Signature Not Verified Signed By:MANOJ KUMAR OHRI Signing Date:29.09.2025 17:12:14 of the process of any Court. (Cf: in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.2)

6. The Supreme Court in Ramgopal & Anr v. The State of Madhya Pradesh3 was dealing with a case wherein the accused had cut off the little finger of the hand of the victim with a Pharsa, and the Trial Court had convicted the accused under Section 294/323/326/34 IPC. The decision was appealed before the Sessions Court. During pendency of said appeal, the parties reached a compromise. The Sessions Court took note of the settlement but refused to compound the offence under Section 326/34 IPC. The High Court also refused to compound the offence. The Supreme Court, while allowing quashing of proceedings on the basis of compromise, reiterated that the extra-ordinary power vested in a High Court under Section 482 CrPC was beyond the constraints and limitations of Section 320, and in appropriate circumstances, keeping in mind the nature of offence, its effect on society, injuries, voluntary nature of the compromise and conduct of the accused persons. The Supreme Court made the following observations : - “19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences „compoundable‟ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.