Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 442 (MP)

Suraj Dhanak v. State of M. P.

2016-06-15

H.P.SINGH

body2016
ORDER : H.P. Singh, J. 1. This revision filed by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code for short), assailing the order dated 20.6.2011 passed by the Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, in Cr.A. No.145/2010, whereby the judgment dated 26.8.2010 passed in Cr. Case No.1621/2008, by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara, convicting the applicant under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, has been affirmed. 2. This case is listed today in compliance of order dated 25.4.2016 for consideration of the compromise application being I.A.No.7463/2016 filed under Section 320 of the (2), (5) and (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The applicant - Suraj Dhanak and complainant - Shivraj Kirar present before the Court and expressed their willingness to compromise in the matter. Applicant - Suraj Dhanak has been duly identified by his counsel Shri S.B. Shrivastava and complainant-Shivraj Kirar has been identified by his counsel B. Pandey. 4. Complainant has submitted before the Court that he himself got agreed for compounding the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, with intention to maintain harmony without any fear or coercion, because good relations have been developed between the applicant and complainant. He and applicant are belong to the same place and they are living peacefully and due to that they want to settle their disputes. 5. The offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, was compoundable, but by the amendment in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by Amendment Act No.25/2005, is made non-compoundable. By Notification dated 21.6.2006, Central Government in exercise of power conferred by subsection (2) of Section 1 of Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2005 (No.25/2005) (for short "the Code") appointed the 23rd June 2006 as the date, on which provisions of said Act, except the provisions of Sections, 16, 25, 28(a), 28(b), 38, 42(a), 42(b), 42(f) (III), (IV) and 44(a), shall come into force. It is clear from this notification and Act 5 of 2009, Section 23(i) for the table (w.e.f. 31.12.2009), that the amendment making the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, non-compoundable, has come into force on 31.12.2009. It is clear from this notification and Act 5 of 2009, Section 23(i) for the table (w.e.f. 31.12.2009), that the amendment making the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, non-compoundable, has come into force on 31.12.2009. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, in view of the aforesaid amendment, present provision, which came after 31.12.2009 would not be applicable in the instant case, because the incident occurred prior to 31.12.2009. 6. In view of the foregoing discussions, this offence of Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, is compoundable with the permission of this Court, as per provision of Section 320(2) read with Section (5) of Criminal Procedure Code, and this Court does not find any reason for refusing the prayer of the complainant as well as applicant for granting permission to compound the offence. Hence, permission is granted. In consequence thereof, I.A.No.7463/2016 is allowed and applicant is acquitted from the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, as per provision under Sub-section (8) of Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code. 7. Since, the applicant is on bail, his bail bond and surety bond stand discharged. Fine amount, if deposited by the applicant, be refunded to him. 8. Office is directed to send a copy of this order along with the records to the trial Court for compliance. 9. Accordingly, the revision stands disposed of.