Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 787 (JHR)

Badruddin Ansari v. State of Jharkhand

2016-05-05

RAVI NATH VERMA

body2016
ORDER : 1. The solitary question, which falls for consideration in the instant revision application, is as to whether even after affirmation of judgment of conviction of the petitioner under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and order of sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year by the appellate court, the petitioner can be allowed to compound the offence under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”)? 2. The details of the facts is not required to be reproduced herein rather a brief statement would suffice the matter:- At the instance of the complainant Raju Verma, C.P. Case No. 1478 of 2007 was instituted under Section 417 of I.P.C. on the allegation that on 10.02.2007 the petitioner, who was an employee of B.C.C.L. approached him to get the name of the complainant registered for contractor in Bharat Coking Coal Limited merely on payment of Rs.12,000/- and on his assurance, the complainant paid Rs. 12,000/- to the petitioner but he failed to get his name registered. Thereafter, the complainant asked the accused-petitioner for refund of his money but the accused-petitioner in place of returning the said money, advised him to invest Rs.9,000/- in the work with another co-accused. After the work was over, the complainant repeatedly demanded his money. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner handed over him a cheuqe of Rs.20,000/- but on presentation in bank, the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund. 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 417 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 Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Dhanbad whereafter the petitioner preferred this revision. 4. During pendency of this revision application, an interlocutory application bearing no. 2730 of 2016 was filed, which is obviously a joint compromise petition filed by the petitioner with the complainant-opposite party with a prayer that as the parties have settled their dispute with the intervention of the well-wishers and relatives, the complainant has now no grievance against the petitioner and cordial relationship has been restored between them. 2730 of 2016 was filed, which is obviously a joint compromise petition filed by the petitioner with the complainant-opposite party with a prayer that as the parties have settled their dispute with the intervention of the well-wishers and relatives, the complainant 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 or undue pressure. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Sahani appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 417 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 and 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 his 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.” Mr. 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.” Mr. Sahani further submitted that the present case also comes well within the four corners of the said judgment and further relying upon paragraph 51 of the said Judgment submitted that even after conviction, 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 in the light of mandates given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above case, the petitioner may be acquitted of all the charges and judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside. 6. Mrs. Amrita Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, relying upon B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 supported the contention of learned counsel Mr. Sahani and submitted that the ratio decided in the above case B.S. Joshi (supra) has also been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh (supra), hence the parties when settled their disputes, permission may be accorded to the parties to compound the offence and she 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. 7. 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 417 of the Indian Penal Code is included in the Schedule of Section 320 of the Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 51 of Gian Singh (supra) 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. 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. 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.” 8. Apparently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment has decided the ratio and given the permission even to the Revisional Court 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. 9. In view of the fact that a joint compromise petition has been filed by both the parties and they were physically present in court, in the light of the ratio decided in the above case, the parties are allowed to compound the offence and consequent thereto, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court are, hereby, set aside. 10. Accordingly, this revision application is allowed. The petitioner, who is on bail, is acquitted of the charge and discharged from liabilities of his bail bonds. Revision allowed.