Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1894 (ALL)

BALVEER PRASAD v. STATE OF U. P.

2006-08-08

SHIVSHANKER

body2006
( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28-6-2006 passed in Session Trial No. 15 of 1998 (State v. Shiv Charan Lal and others)under S. 307. I. P. C. Police Station Lodha, district Allgarh passed by the Additional sessions Judge, Aligarh, whereby the application moved on behalf of the accused person regarding permission, along with the compromise application between the parties was rejected. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts arising out of this revision are that the accused persons Shiv Charan lal and others are facing trial before the sessions Judge. unders. 307, I. P. C. and the case is still pending since 24th November, 1999. Thereafter, the present application and compromise application moved before the trial Court were rejected. Hence, this revision. ( 3 ) HEARD the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned aga and perused the records. ( 4 ) THE application was moved on behalf of the revisionist and time was taken to show the case law after lunch. No case law regarding permission, to compromise in the case was produced. Thereafter, it was rejected on the ground that the offence under s. 307, I. P. C. is not compoundable under S. 320 of Criminal Procedure Code. ( 5 ) IT is contended on behalf of the revisionist that there are several pronouncements of honble Supreme Court and allahabad High Court that the case may be decided on the basis of the compromise. However, it is not compoundable. ( 6 ) LEARNED AGA has submitted that the court below has not committed any error of law. Subordinate Court is the Court of law. Therefore, the provisions provided in the Act or Acts shall be complied- In the present case, revisionist and others were facing the trial for the charge under S, 307 of Indian penal Code, which is not corn pound able under 3. 320, Cr. P. C. Therefore, learned court below has rightly rejected the application of compromise. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has attracted my attention towards the following pronouncements : 1. Barsati v. State of U. P. (2000) 41 ACC 372 passed by Honble Apex Court, 2. Bhawani Prasad v. State of U. P. (2000)41 ACC 372 passed by Allahabad High court, Lucknow Bench. 3. Km. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist has attracted my attention towards the following pronouncements : 1. Barsati v. State of U. P. (2000) 41 ACC 372 passed by Honble Apex Court, 2. Bhawani Prasad v. State of U. P. (2000)41 ACC 372 passed by Allahabad High court, Lucknow Bench. 3. Km. Madhurima Bhargava v, State of u. P. , 1999 (38) ACC 367 : (1999 All LJ 75 ). 4. Photostat copy of Criminal Revision No. 8106 of 2003 Pankaj Mishra v. State of U. P. (20061 5 All LJ 146. ( 8 ) HONble Apex Court is the Court of justice and there are unfettered powers of the Honble Apex Court. In the case of barsati v. State of U. P. , it appears that the trial Court has convicted the accused for the charge under Ss. 147, 323/149 and 325/149, i. P. C. S. 304. Part II read with S. 149, i. P. C. but in the appeal the conviction for the charge under 5. 304. Part II was set aside and rest of the convictions was affirmed. Therefore, the compromise was moved before the Honble Supreme Court for the charge under Ss. 147, 323/149 and 325 /149. I. P. C. , which was allowed by the Honble supreme Court. Therefore, the Supreme court has not allowed the compromise application regarding the offence unders. 304, part II of the Indian Penal Code. ( 9 ) SO far as the case law of Km. Madhurima Bhargawa v. State of U. P. (1999 all LJ 75) is concerned, it has been held that offence under S, 302. I. P. C. is non-com-poundable offence. It cannot be compounded under the provision of S. 482, Cr, P. C. The proceedings can be quashed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, if parties are ready to compromise. Therefore, the revisionist is not liable to get any benefit from the above two pronouncements. ( 10 ) SO far as unreported case of Criminal Revision no. It cannot be compounded under the provision of S. 482, Cr, P. C. The proceedings can be quashed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, if parties are ready to compromise. Therefore, the revisionist is not liable to get any benefit from the above two pronouncements. ( 10 ) SO far as unreported case of Criminal Revision no. 8106 of 2003 (Pankaj mishra v. State of U. P.) (2006) 5 All LJ 146 is concerned, it relates to the family disputes under Ss, 49s-A, 323 and 506, I. P. C. It does not refer to the heinous crime for the offence under S. 307, I. P. C. Therefore, the trial court could not consider the offences to be compoundable, which are not mentioned under S. 320 of the Criminal Procedure code. ( 11 ) IN these circumstances, the criminal revision has no force and is liable in be dismissed. Consequently, this revision is hereby dismissed. ( 12 ) IT is very old case in the circumstances, the trial Court is directed to decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties within three months as far as possible and information be sent by the trial Court regarding disposal of the case thereafter. Revision dismissed.