Jharkhand High Court
Ram Ratan Lal Rajgarhia And Pradeep ... vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 20 September, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 304 (JHAR.) = 2008 (1) AIR JHAR R 132, 2008 (1) AIR JHAR R 132 (2007) 4 JLJR 509, (2007) 4 JLJR 509
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. The petitioners have filed this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 14,2.2005 passed by S.D.J.M. Giridih in Complaint Case No. l 114/2004 whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioners praying therein to accept the joint petition of compromise filed by the petitioners and opposite party No. 2 complainant as the offence in which cognizance was taken, was compoundable without permission of the court.
2. Opposite Party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih against the petitioners for taking cognizance under Section 500 I.P.C. The complainant alleged inter alia that the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 26 of 2001 against the complainant and others in respect of some lands of Shastri Nagar, Giridih. In the plaint the petitioners alleged that the locality where the suit land situate has developed much and has been named as Shastri Nagar Mohalla, Giridih. Hence dishonest persons and law breakers have been indulging in all sorts of criminalities and hooliganism and as such all the properties of the landlord are at peril in the hands of such unscrupulous persons. It was further alleged that such defamatory imputation concerning the complainant intending to harm or knowing reasons to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant as Advocate in his profession and in His social life as social worker has defamed the complainant for which petitioners have committed offence of defaming the complainant under Section 500 I.P.C.
3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under Section 500 I.P.C. against the petitioners and transferred the case to the S.D.J.M. Giridih for trial. During the pendency of the case a joint petition of compromise was filed by the petitioners and the complainant in the court of S.D.J.M. Giridih on 4.11.2003 with a prayer to accept the compromise petition filed by the parties and to acquit the petitioners as the offence is compoundable without permission of the court. It was stated by the petitioners that the compromise petition should have been accepted by the Court as soon as the same was tiled but the same remain pending in the court for acceptance. Hence the petitioners filed a petition in the court below praying to accept the compromise petition, which was filed on 4.11.2003. However, the complainant thereafter filed rejoinder petition whereby he resiled from the compromise and prayed to the court to proceed with the case. The S.D.J.M. rejected the petition by passing the impugned order and refused to accept the compromise on the ground of rejoinder filed by the complainant.
4. I have learned Counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of service of notice neither the complainant nor any lawyer appeared on his behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed.
5. The moot question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Court is under obligation to accept the compromise petition filed in a case where the offence is compoundable.
6. Section 320 Cr.P.C. deals with compoundable offences. Sub-section (1) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. reads as under:
Section 320: Compounding of offences: (1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code ( 45 of 1860), specified in the first two columns of the table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table (2) The offence punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may, with the permission of the court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by persons mentioned in the third column of that Table
7. The table shows various types of offences punishable under the sections of Indian Penal Code including Section 500 i.e. defamation except such cases as are specified against Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in column (1) of the table under Sub-section (2). Third column of the table shows person by whom offence may be compounded. So far Section 500 is concerned it can be compounded by the person defamed. Similarly subs-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. deals with the offences punishable under the sections of I.P.C. specified in the first two column of the table with the permission of the court before whom any prosecution for such offence is pending. The table prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. also includes Section 500 if the offence of defamation has been committed against the President or Vice-President or the Governor of a State or the Administrator of a Union Territory or a Minister in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public function when instituted upon a complaint made by the public prosecutor. Sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C, therefore, makes it clear that if offence of defamation under Section 500 I.P.C. is committed against the persons mentioned hereinabove, then the offence may be compounded with the permission of the Court only. Sub-sections (3) to Sub-sections (9) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. reads as under:
(3) When any offence is compoundable under this section, the abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence (when such attempt is itself an offence) may be compounded in like manner.
(4)(a) When the persons who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is under the age of 18 years or is an idiot or an lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf may, with the permission of the court, compound such offence.
(b) When the person who would other be competent to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal representative, as defined in the code of civil procedure 1908 ( 5 of 1908), of such person may, with the consent of the court, compound such offence.
(5) When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no compromise for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard.
(6) A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under Section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence, which such person is competent to compound under this section.
(7) No offence shall be compounded if the accused is, by reason of a previous conviction, liable either to enhanced punishment or to a punishment of a different kind for such offence.
(8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.
(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section.
8. Sub-section (3) provides that if any offence is compoundable under this section, the abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence may also be compounded in like manner. Sub-section (4) of Section 320 provides that when the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is under the age of 18 years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf may, with the permission of the court, compound such offence. In a situation where a person who is competent to compound the offence is dead then the legal representatives may, with the consent of the court compound such offence.
9. From reading the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. it is manifestly clear that the offence specified in the Table under Sub-section (1) are compoundable without the court's permission but the offence shown in the table under Sub-section (2) cannot be compoundable unless the court permits. A case can be compounded any time before the judgment is pronounced even when the judgment is being written. However, after the judgment there cannot be compounding. There is no dispute that if the offence falls within Sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C, the court is bound to enquire into the compromise and record his satisfaction before granting permission and accepting compromise. However, so far Sub-section (1) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. is concerned, in my view the court is bound to accept the compromise and acquit the accused. The compromise can be accepted as soon as it is made and the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
10. In the instant case as noticed above, a complaint case was filed for the offence under Section 500 I.P.C which is compoundable in the manner provided in Sub-section (1) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Before trial commenced a joint compromise petition was filed by both the parties on 4.11.2003 with a prayer to accept the compromise petition and to acquit the petitioners, as the offences are compoundable without the permission of the court. Neither the Magistrate passed any order on that application nor the case proceeded any further, rather, it remained pending for about a year for acceptance of the compromise. When no order was passed the petitioners filed application on 15.9.2004 praying therein to accept the compromise which was filed by the parties on 4.11.2003. However, against the said petition a rejoinder was filed by the complainant resiling from the compromise and praying the court to proceed with the matter. The Magistrate in the impugned order while rejecting the compromise petition observed that the compromise petition was not accepted by the court till date and it. was argued from the side the complainant that even after filing of the compromise petition some threats were given by the petitioners. In my, considered opinion, the Magistrate hap totally misconstrued the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. by holding that the parties cannot compromise for the alleged offence under Section 500 I.P.C. without the permission of the court.
11. A similar question arose for consideration before the Patna High Court in the case of Dharichchan Singh and Ors. v. Emperor AIR 1939 Patna 141. In that case a compromise petition was filed for accepting the compromise in respect of an offence compoundable under Sub-section (1) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. (old Section 345 IPC). The court observed that in law a composition once arrived at between the parties is complete as soon as it is made and the Magistrate is in duty bound to order an acquittal on the filing of the compromise petition signed by both parties in court for an offence for which no leave of the court is required and the complainant cannot, by a subsequent withdrawal of the petition, before any order is passed on it, insist upon the case being proceeded with. Their Lordships observed:
It is to be noticed that the Magistrate does not say in this order that he insisted upon the case to proceed because of the note of the Superintendent of Police. It seems to me that the Magistrate was influenced mainly by the fact that the parties had resiled from the compromise. If the learned. Magistrate had known, that in law a composition once arrived at between the parties is complete as soon as it is made and that it has the effect of acquittal even though one of the parties later on resiles from the compromise, he would not have passed the order of 26th May. The case law on this point is reviewed in 33 C.L.J. 226, where the leading Calcutta and Madras cases on the point have been considered and it was held in circumstances such as the present that the Magistrate was in duty bound to order an acquittal on the filing of the compromise petition signed by both parties in court for an offence for which no leave of the court was required and the complainant cannot by a subsequent withdrawal of the petition before any order is passed on it, insist upon the case being proceeded with.
12. In the instant case as noticed above, admittedly a compromise petition was filed by both the parties praying to the court to accept the compromise and acquit the petitioners. The complainant has not disputed the genuineness of the compromise petition filed by both the parties. Merely because it remained pending for about a year and when the petitioners, by filing a petition, prayed to the court to accept the compromise, a rejoinder was filed by the complainant stating that still the petitioners give threats to the complainant the Magistrate rejected the petition. In the light of the principles laid down by the court in my considered opinion, the complainant cannot be allowed to resile from the compromise. The Magistrate was duty bound to accept the compromise and acquit the petitioners/accused.
13. For the aforesaid reasons this application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Magistrate is set aside. The Magistrate is, accordingly, directed to pass appropriate order accepting compromise and acquitting the accused-petitioners