Radha Charan Sharma v. Deepu Sharma and Another), under Sections

pendency of the case, both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the case and thus an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. was filed to decide the case on the basis of compromise. As said application was not decided, applicant has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vide Application No.44619 of 2023 before this Court for quashing of proceedings, wherein this Court has directed the trial Court to decide the said application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. expeditiously. While deciding the said application, the trial Court has rejected said application vide impugned order dated 10.06.2024. It was submitted that offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with permission of Court and that offence under Section 120B IPC is not a separate and independent offence but the same has to be read with Section 420 IPC and the observation of the trial Court that offence under Section 120B IPC is separate offence and the same is not compoundable, is against law. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned order is against law and that impugned order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also concurred with arguments of the learned Senior Advocate and submitted that both the parties have compromised the case and thus, the impugned order as well as the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that applicant was summoned for offence under Sections 420, 120B IPC and it was submitted that both the parties have compromised the matter and an application was filed under Section 320 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for disposal of the case in terms of compromise. It appears that said application has been rejected by the trial Court mainly on the ground that offence under Section 120B IPC is not compoundable. As per table of Section 320(2) Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with permission of the Court. In both the tables of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the offence of Section 120B IPC has not been shown and that provisions of Clause (9) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. provide that no offence shall be compoundable except as provided by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is clear that offence under section 120-B IPC has not been shown in list of cases mentioned in Section 320 Cr.P.C., which are compondable or compoundable with permission of Court. While rejecting the application filed under Section 320 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court has referred case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai & Others 2009 (8) SCC 617, wherein it has been held that a conspiracy to commit an offence is altogether an independent offence and punished separately. Similarly, the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another 2010 (15) SCC 118 was also referred, wherein it has been held as under:- "4. Section 320, Cr.P.C. mentions certain offences as compoundable, certain other offences as compoundable with the permission of the Court, and the other offences as non- compoundable vide Section 320(7)

5. Section 420, IPC, one of the counts on which the petitioner has been convicted, no doubt, is a compoundable offence with permission of the Court in view of Section 320, Cr.P.C. but Section 120B IPC, the other count on which the petitioner has been convicted, is a non-compoundable offence. Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy) is a separate offence and since it is a non- compoundable offence, we cannot permit it to be compounded.

6. The Court cannot amend the statute and must maintain judicial restraint in this connection. The Courts should not try to take over the function of the Parliament or executive. It is the legislature alone which can amend Section 320 Cr.P.C."

7. In view of aforesaid case laws, the observation of learned trial Court that offence under Section 120B IPC is a separate and independent offence and as per provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., it is compoundable, appears in accordance with law. Thus, it can not be said that impugned order dated 10.06.2024, whereby the application for compromise was rejected, is suffering from any such patent illegality or abuse of the process of Court so as to require any interference by invoking extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. It would be relevant to mention that as per version of the complainant, the contract for "Mandir Bhog Bhet Seva Pooja" of "Girraj Daan Ghati Temple', Vridavan was awarded to applicant and co-accused for the period of 1.06.2012 to 15.07.2012 against consideration of Rs.1,01,00000/- and accused persons have paid two installments but cheque of Rs.31 lakhs given for third installment was dishonoured. The funds in question pertains to Temple and nothing has been brought on record whether it is governed by any Trust or otherwise and the complainant is authorised to compound the case. Even otherwise in view of nature of accusations, no case for invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned proceedings is made out, particularly when there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The powers under section 482 CrPC have to be exercised for securing ends of justice and only in cases where a refusal to exercise that power may result in abuse of the process of law. In the instant matter no such contingency could be shown. Hence, this application under section 482 CrPC has no force thus, liable to be dismissed.

9. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 'SP'/- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

pendency of the case, both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and compromised the case and thus an application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. was filed to decide the case on the basis of compromise. As said application was not decided, applicant has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vide Application No.44619 of 2023 before this Court for quashing of proceedings, wherein this Court has directed the trial Court to decide the said application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. expeditiously. While deciding the said application, the trial Court has rejected said application vide impugned order dated 10.06.2024. It was submitted that offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with permission of Court and that offence under Section 120B IPC is not a separate and independent offence but the same has to be read with Section 420 IPC and the observation of the trial Court that offence under Section 120B IPC is separate offence and the same is not compoundable, is against law. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned order is against law and that impugned order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are liable to be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also concurred with arguments of the learned Senior Advocate and submitted that both the parties have compromised the case and thus, the impugned order as well as the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that applicant was summoned for offence under Sections 420, 120B IPC and it was submitted that both the parties have compromised the matter and an application was filed under Section 320 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for disposal of the case in terms of compromise. It appears that said application has been rejected by the trial Court mainly on the ground that offence under Section 120B IPC is not compoundable. As per table of Section 320(2) Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with permission of the Court. In both the tables of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the offence of Section 120B IPC has not been shown and that provisions of Clause (9) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. provide that no offence shall be compoundable except as provided by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is clear that offence under section 120-B IPC has not been shown in list of cases mentioned in Section 320 Cr.P.C., which are compondable or compoundable with permission of Court. While rejecting the application filed under Section 320 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court has referred case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai & Others 2009 (8) SCC 617, wherein it has been held that a conspiracy to commit an offence is altogether an independent offence and punished separately. Similarly, the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another 2010 (15) SCC 118 was also referred, wherein it has been held as under:- "4. Section 320, Cr.P.C. mentions certain offences as compoundable, certain other offences as compoundable with the permission of the Court, and the other offences as non- compoundable vide Section 320(7)

5. Section 420, IPC, one of the counts on which the petitioner has been convicted, no doubt, is a compoundable offence with permission of the Court in view of Section 320, Cr.P.C. but Section 120B IPC, the other count on which the petitioner has been convicted, is a non-compoundable offence. Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy) is a separate offence and since it is a non- compoundable offence, we cannot permit it to be compounded.

6. The Court cannot amend the statute and must maintain judicial restraint in this connection. The Courts should not try to take over the function of the Parliament or executive. It is the legislature alone which can amend Section 320 Cr.P.C."

7. In view of aforesaid case laws, the observation of learned trial Court that offence under Section 120B IPC is a separate and independent offence and as per provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., it is compoundable, appears in accordance with law. Thus, it can not be said that impugned order dated 10.06.2024, whereby the application for compromise was rejected, is suffering from any such patent illegality or abuse of the process of Court so as to require any interference by invoking extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

8. It would be relevant to mention that as per version of the complainant, the contract for "Mandir Bhog Bhet Seva Pooja" of "Girraj Daan Ghati Temple', Vridavan was awarded to applicant and co-accused for the period of 1.06.2012 to 15.07.2012 against consideration of Rs.1,01,00000/- and accused persons have paid two installments but cheque of Rs.31 lakhs given for third installment was dishonoured. The funds in question pertains to Temple and nothing has been brought on record whether it is governed by any Trust or otherwise and the complainant is authorised to compound the case. Even otherwise in view of nature of accusations, no case for invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the impugned proceedings is made out, particularly when there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The powers under section 482 CrPC have to be exercised for securing ends of justice and only in cases where a refusal to exercise that power may result in abuse of the process of law. In the instant matter no such contingency could be shown. Hence, this application under section 482 CrPC has no force thus, liable to be dismissed.

9. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 'SP'/- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad