Chattisgarh High Court
Mithlesh Pandaya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:13178
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 157 of 2025
1 - Mithlesh Pandaya S/o Late Vinod Pandaya Aged About 24 Years R/o
Prabhat Nagar Ward No. 38, Lalbagh Thana Basantpur District -
Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Basantpur District -
Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Shri T.K.Tiwari, Advocate
For RespondentState : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.GA
For Complainant : Shri I.Anurag Sonwani, Advocate
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judgment on Board
19/03/2025
This appeal arises out of a common judgment dated 23.11.2024
passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge Rajnandgaon CG in
Sessions Trial No. 101/2021 whereby the appellants have been held
guilty of commission of the offence under Section 323/34 IPC (three
counts) and sentenced him to undergo Simple imprisonment for one
month and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.
2. Prosecution story as revealed from the records of the case is that
on 28.05.2021 at about 12.00 midnight, the complainant Prince Gosai
was taking his friend Aditya Saudagar in his motorcycle to the hospital
and while returning at about 1.30 midnight, they went to the parking
place, at that point of time, suddenly they collided with Harsh Pandya,
Ashish Pandya, Praveen Baghel @ Kadhi, Mithlesh Pandya and there
was quarrel and maar-peeth between them. Thereafter, they threatened
and took the injured persons and the complainant to an isolated building
where Harsh Pandya stabbed with knife and the other accused persons
assaulted with hands and fists as a result of which they sustained
injuries. Report was lodged at the police station against the accused
persons under Sections 294/34,365/34,307/34,201/34 and 323/34 IPC.
After completion of usual investigation and recording diary statements,
investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class Sarangarh who, in turn, committed for
trial.
3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 16
witnesses. The appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and
they denied having committed any offence and said that they have been
falsely implicated.
4. Learned trial court relying upon the oral and documentary
evidence has held the appellants guilty of commission of the offence
and sentence as described above. Hence the present appeal.
5. During pendency of the appeal, the complainant has filed
application under Sections 320(2) and 320(5) of Cr.P.C seeking
permission to compound the offence and for letting off the appellant
from the criminal prosecution. This court on earlier occasion had
directed the complainants-Bhutanese Sahu and Prince Gosai to enter
appearance before the Additional Registrar (J) of this Court for
recording their statements.
6. Pursuant to filing of above application, vide order dated
18.03.2025 the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar
(Judicial) / Additional Registrar (Judicial) of the Registry of this Court on
19.03.2025 for verification of compromise between the parties.
7. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence, counsel for the appellant has made a prayer
before this Court to accept the compromise and terminate the appellate
proceedings in the present appeal.
8. A glance of Section 320 of CrPC makes it is clear that for
compounding of the offence punishable under the IPC, a complete
strategy has been provided thereunder. Section 320 (1) provides that
the offences mentioned in the table provided thereunder can be
compounded by the persons mentioned in Column No.3 of the said
table. Further, sub-section (2) provides that, the offences mentioned in
the table could be compounded by the victim with the permission of the
Court. Sub-section (9) specifically provides that "no offence shall be
compounded except as provided by this Section." Section 320 (8) of
CrPC envisages that the composition of offence under this Section shall
have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has
been compounded.
9. In the case at hand, the appellant has been convicted by the trial
Court under Sectio323/34 of IPC on three counts.
10. The offence under Section 323 of IPC is compoundable in nature
even without permission of the Court and as a compromise has already
been arrived at between the parties in the instant case under which the
complainant and the injured does not want any action against the
appellant herein, therefore, in light of compromise between the parties,
the offence under Section 323 of IPC is compounded and resultantly,
the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 323/34 of IPC.
18. Perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the trial Court
has elaborately discussed and scrutinized the evidence produced by the
prosecution.
11. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the the
provisions of section 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C held that the
compounding was permitted in a non-compoundable offence. Relevant
part of the order of the order reads as under :-
"Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on
the ground of settlement between an offender and
victim is not the same thing as compounding of
offence. They are different and not
interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of
compounding of offences given to a court under
Section 320 is materially different from the
quashing of criminal proceedings by the High
Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In
compounding of offences, power of a criminal
court is circumscribed by the provisions contained
in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and
squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the
formation of opinion by the High Court for
quashing a criminal offence or criminal
proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the
material on record as to whether the ends of
justice would justify such exercise of power
although the ultimate consequence may be
acquittal or dismissal of indictment. B.S.Joshi,
Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do
illustrate the principle that the High Court may
quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent power under Section 482
of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or
affect the powers of the High Court under Section
482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal
proceedings in B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj
Sharma and Shiji this Court has compounded the
non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not
think so. There does exist the distinction between
compounding of an offence under Section 320
and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court
in exercise of inherent power under Section 482.
The two powers are distinct and different although
the ultimate consequence may be the same viz.
acquittal of the accused or dismissal of
indictment."
12. In the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law and the statement
made by the complaint and the injured, this Court is of the view that no
purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending as the parties
have amicably settled the matter and they are friends and belong to
same locality. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the order of conviction
and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges in
view of the compromise between the parties and he shall be released
forthwith, if not required in any other case.
13. Accordingly, present appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
SUGUNA Date:
DUBEY 2025.03.25
16:11:01
+0530
