Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 791 (JHR)

Ravi Shankar Thakur v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-10

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
ORDER : The solitary question, which falls for determination in the instant revision application, is as to whether the petitioner, who has been convicted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine with default clause and the affirmation of the said judgment of conviction by the appellate court, can be allowed to be compounded under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”)? 2. The details of the facts is not required to be reproduced herein rather a brief statement of fact would suffice the matter. At the instance of the complainant Raj Kishore Singh, C.P. Case no. 309 of 2005 was instituted for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. on the allegation that his son Santosh Kumar was getting computer training in the Computer Center of this petitioner Ravi Shankar Thakur. The petitioner lured him to deposit Rs.79000/- in the account of one Manish Kumar Tiwari on the pretext that he will provide job to his son with Indian Railways. It is alleged that he deposited the amount of Rs.79,000/- as required but both the accused persons i.e. the present petitioner and Manish Kumar Tiwari misappropriated the entire amount and when the complainant demanded the money back, he was threatened of dire consequence. 3. It appears from the record that the court of Judicial Magistrate after examining the complainant and other witnesses took cognizance of the offence. After framing of charge, the witnesses were examined and finally the court of learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. as indicated above. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad whereafter the petitioner preferred this revision. During pendency of this revision application, an interlocutory application bearing no. 3430 of 2015 was filed, which is obviously a joint compromise petition filed by the informant-opposite party, who had suo moto appeared in this revision application with a prayer that now the parties have settled their dispute with the intervention of the well-wishers and relatives and the informant has now no grievance against the petitioner and cordial relationship has been restored between them. It is also stated that they have settled their disputes amicably without any coercion and threaten and the statement has been made by both the parties on two different affidavits. 4. Learned counsel Mrs. Mazumdar appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 420 of I.P.C is compoundable with the permission of the court and since the parties have settled their disputes, the allegation being civil in nature has no impact on society, parties may be allowed to compound the offences in consonance with the wisdom of the legislature for which Section 320 of Cr.P.C. was enacted. In support of her contention, the learned counsel has relied upon paragraph 58 of the case Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another; (2012) 10 SCC 303 , which reads as follows: “58. .............Certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed.” Mrs. Mazumdar further submitted that the present case also comes well within the four corners of the said judgment. Learned counsel further relying upon paragraph 51 of the said Judgment submitted that even after conviction and before Revisional Court also, the accused can be allowed to compound any offence, which is competent to compound under Section 320 of the Code and further prays that since Section 420 of I.P.C. is compoundable with the permission of the Court, the parties may be allowed to compound the offence and consequently the petitioner be acquitted of all the charges and judgment of conviction and sentence may be set aside. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Parthsarthi, learned counsel appearing for the informant, relying upon B.S.Joshi and others Vs. State of Hariyana and another; (2003) 4 SCC 675 supported the contention of learned counsel Mrs. Mazumdar and submitted that the case of B.S.Joshi and others Vs. State of Hariyana and another (supra) has also been considered in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and prayed that as the parties have settled their disputes and Section 420 of I.P.C. is compoundable in nature, permission may be granted to the parties to compound the offence and he has no objection if the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court are set aside. 6. Section 320 of the Code sets out the details of offences in different tables, which are compoundable by the parties and those which are compoundable with the leave of the court. It is no doubt that Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is included in the Schedule of Section 320 of the Code. In paragraph 51 of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held has follows: “51. Section 320 of the Code articulates public policy with regard to the compounding of offences. It catalogues the offences punishable under IPC which may be compounded by the parties without permission of the court and the composition of certain offences with the permission of the court. The offences punishable under the special statues are not covered by Section 320. When an offence is compoundable under Section 320, abatement of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence or where the accused is liable under Section 34 or 149 IPC can also be compounded in the same manner. A person who is under 18 years of age or is an idiot or a lunatic is not competent to contract compounding of offence but the same can be done on his behalf with the permission of the court. If a person is otherwise competent to compound an offence is dead, his legal representatives may also compound the offence with the permission of the court. If a person is otherwise competent to compound an offence is dead, his legal representatives may also compound the offence with the permission of the court. Where the accused has been committed for trial or he has been convicted and the appeal is pending, composition can only be done with the leave of the court to which he has been committed or with the leave of the appeal court, as the case may be. The Revisional Court is also competent to allow any person to compound any offence who is competent to compound. The consequence of the composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 mandates that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. Obviously, in view thereof the composition of an offence has to be in accord with Section 320 and in no other manner. “ 7. Apparently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment has decided the ration and given the permission to the Revisional Court also to compound any offence, which comes within the Schedule of Section 320 of the Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the consequence of composition of an offence is acquittal of the accused. 8. As stated above, a joint compromise petition has been filed by both the parties and they were physically present in court, hence in the light of the ratio decided in the above case, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court are, hereby, set aside. 9. Accordingly, this revision application is, hereby, allowed and the petitioner, who is on bail, is discharged from liabilities of his bail bonds.