Badrul Hossain vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. D.K. Das Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, the complainant.

The respondent No.2 and the accused namely Md. Badrul Hossain, the petitioner herein have filed one application under Section 482 read with Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 06.04.2016 as the respondent No.2 has come forward to compound the offence as committed by the petitioner. The said application filed under Section 482 read with Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. is registered as I.A. No.02 of 2010.

Both Mr. Datta and Mr. D.K. Das Choudhury learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have submitted in unison that the parties have resolved their dispute and in order to build up a good relationship, the respondent No.2 has decided to compound the offence punishable under Section 467/471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have filed that application for compounding the offence jointly.

Mr. D.K. Das Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has submitted that other two convicts have expired during pendency of this petition.

Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that in the allegation it has not been particularised, out of the three convicts, who have forged the documents [the certified copy of the sale deed] in order to garner wrongful gain. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has demonstrate the authority of this court in order to compound the offence which is not catalogued under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. from the decision of the apex court in Yogendra Yadav and Others versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 where it has been held as under :

"4. Now, the question before this Court is whether this Court can compound the offences under Sections 326 and 307 of the IPC which are non-compoundable. Needless to say that offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed Gian Singh v. State of Punjab : (2012) 10 SCC 303. However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may send wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.

In Gian Singh this Court has observed that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. Needless to say that the above observations are applicable to this Court also.

Learned counsel for the parties have requested this Court that the impugned order be set aside as the High Court has not noticed the correct position in law in regard to quashing of criminal proceedings when there is a compromise. Affidavit has been filed in this Court by complainant-Anil Mandal, who is respondent No. 2 herein. In the affidavit he has stated that a compromise petition has been filed in the lower court. It is further stated that he and the appellants are neighbours, that there is harmonious relationship between the two sides and that they are living peacefully. He has further stated that he does not want to contest the present appeal and he has no grievance against the appellants. Learned counsel for the parties have confirmed that the disputes between the parties are settled; that parties are abiding by the compromise deed and living peacefully. They have urged that in the circumstances pending proceedings be quashed. State of Jharkhand has further filed an affidavit opposing the compromise. The affidavit does not persuade us to reject the prayer made by the appellant and the second respondent for quashing of the proceedings."

Having regard to the law as enunciated by the apex court in Yogendra Yadav(supra) and having taken the relevant fact in the record and the statement filed jointly by the accused and the complainant in I.A. No. 02 of 2010 arising from Crl.Rev.P.No.38 of 2016, this court is inclined to allow the complainant to compound the offence even at this stage.

Having observed so, the judgment and order of the first appellate court dated 19.12.2013 delivered in Crl.A.04(01) of 2014 whereby the matter was remanded for commencing for trial afresh stands set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the criminal liability and accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.