State Of Chhattisgarh vs Mahendra Rajwade
2023 Latest Caselaw 1081 Chatt

                                    1

                                                             NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         Cr.M.P No.690 of 2016


 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Baikunthpur,
 Distt. Korea Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh              ----Petitioner


                                    Versus


1. Mahendra Rajwade S/o Ranjit Rajwade Aged About 39 Years R/o
   Village Mahuwapara, Charcha, Police Station Charcha, Distt. Korea
   Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
2. Dhansay @ Giri S/o Jagmohan Rajwade Aged About 41 Years R/o
   Village Mahuwapara, Charcha, Police Station Charcha, Distt. Korea
   Chhattisgarh , District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
3. Ku. Sneha (Minor) D/o Mahendra Rajwade Aged About 17 Years
   Through Local Guardian Shri Pilu Ram Rajwade, S/o Late Shri Tej
   Ram Rajwade, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Basantpur, Police Station
   Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja
   (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner/State: Shri Chitendra Singh, PL.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 20.02.2023

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the

Sessions Judge, Baikunthpur, District Korea in Sessions Case

No.70/2014 whereby, convicting father of Respondent No.3-Ku

Sneha under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife

Namita, a direction for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.1

lac payable by the Collector, Korea was given, the State/Petitioner

has filed this Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. Shri Singh, learned Panel Lawyer submits that according to

sub-section (5) of Section 357A of the Cr.P.C, on the receipt of such

recommendations or on the application under sub-section (4), the

State or the District Legal Services Authority shall, after due enquiry

award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two

months. He further submits that in the present case, the trial Court

itself has fixed the amount of compensation, which is beyond

jurisdiction, therefore, the aforesaid direction is bad in law and is not

sustainable.

3. Considering the submission of learned State Counsel and

having perused the provision of Section 357A Cr.P.C wherein the

mechanism for determination of compensation is stipulated under

sub-section (5) of Cr.P.C, this Court finds that the trial Court, while

passing the judgment of conviction, had also fixed the amount of

compensation which is dehors the provision of law, which is not

sustainable.

4. In view of above, the impugned direction is hereby quashed and

the same shall be deemed to be treated as a recommendation and

the concerned District Legal Services Authority is directed to proceed

further in accordance with law after informing Respondent No.3 and

also after giving her sufficient opportunity by following the due

procedure of law.

5. With the aforesaid observation, the Petition stands disposed

of.

6. A copy of this order be sent to concerned District Legal

Services Authority for necessary compliance.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya