Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 948 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mehar Chand @ Nikka

2017-08-18

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Cr. MPM No. 1299 of 2016. 1. Heard. Leave to appeal granted. Application stands disposed of. Registry is directed to register the appeal. Cr. Appeal No. 451 of 2017 2. Heard. By way of this appeal, order passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Una, Circuit Court at Amb, District Una, stands assailed, vide which application so filed by the present respondent/appellant before the learned Appellate Court under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for short) for compounding of the case was allowed by the learned Appellate Court and that too on the basis of consent so given by the learned Public Prosecutor before the said Court that the State has no objection in case this case is compounded by the Court. 3. The grievance raised by way of this appeal is that there is an infirmity in the order so passed by the learned Appellate Court to the extent that learned Appellate Court erred in ordering that in view of compounding of the case, FIR and challan stood “dismissed” whereas the word which ought to have been used in the order should have been ‘quashed’ and further that there ought to have been a specific line in the order that the judgment of conviction so passed by the learned trial Court stood set aside and that the appellant was further ordered to have been acquitted. 4. In my considered view, this appeal is totally misconceived. This is for the reason that it is not the case of the State that compounding of the case was done by the learned Appellate Court despite the objection of the State and/or that it stood erroneously recorded in the order that State had no objection if the case was so compounded. 5. Section 320 (8) of the Cr.P.C. clearly contemplates that when the case is ordered to be compounded, the effect of the same shall be as if the accused stands acquitted. Vide order under challenge, learned Appellate Court has compounded the case which stood filed against the accused in which he was convicted by the learned trial Court. 5. Section 320 (8) of the Cr.P.C. clearly contemplates that when the case is ordered to be compounded, the effect of the same shall be as if the accused stands acquitted. Vide order under challenge, learned Appellate Court has compounded the case which stood filed against the accused in which he was convicted by the learned trial Court. Now when the case itself, which led to the conviction of the accused by the learned trial Court stood compounded by the learned Appellate Court and that too on the basis of no objection which was so given by the State, the same automatically amounts to acquittal of the accused, especially in view of the statutory provisions as are contemplated under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. 6. Therefore, in my considered view, the recording of setting aside of judgment of conviction by learned Appellate Court not finding mention in the order so passed by learned Appellate Court is of no consequence. Further the contention of the State that the order is otherwise unsustainable as learned Appellate Court has erred in dismissing the FIR and challan rather than quashing the same, in my considered view, is non-consequential because the intent of the order so passed by learned Appellate Court was that the case which was registered against the petitioner stood compounded with all consequential effects and the same can be easily inferred from the order. 7. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, as there is no merit in the present appeal, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.