Sunita Mehto vs Kodulal Mehto

This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.04.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Rajgarh in Sessions Trial No.16/2010 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 451 of IPC and sentenced him to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act r/w Section 354 of IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

While the appeal was pending, the parties have entered into compromise. They filed an application I.A. No.9327/2016 under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. and I.A. No.9328/2016 under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for grant of permission to compromise the matter.

The factum of compromise between the parties was verified by Principal Registrar of this Court on 07.03.2017.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offence under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was non compoundable, however, the offence under various sections of IPC are compoundable. He submits that the offence though non compoundable can be compounded if this Court permits such compounding of the offence exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the appellant cited the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54. In this case, Hon''ble Apex Court in para 29 of the judgment laid down the guidelines on which the High Court using the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 and quash the charges framed under non- compoundable offences. Taking the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court under consideration. It is apparent that the present dispute is regarding a business matter. It is their personal dispute and society at large is not affected by the dispute. The Hon''ble Apex Court in para 29.2 laid down two tests stating therein that the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.

While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

Regarding Section 307 of IPC, the Apex Court observed in para 29.6 as under :-

"Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship."

In the present case, the incident is of year 2009. Father-in- law of the prosecutrix was also present when the incident took place. In such situation, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction conferred of this Court may exercise in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

The appellant is acquitted from charge under section 451 of IPC and Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act r/w Section 354 of IPC.

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is disposed of.