Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shamsher Bahadur Singh Chandel @ Golend ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 21 April, 2014
(1)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
Criminal Revision No. 1465/2010
Shamsher Bahadur Singh Chandel
@ Golend Singh
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
AS PER : G.S. SOLANKI, J.
Shri Pushpendra Kumar Verma, Adv. for the applicant.
Shri R.S.Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State.
_________________________________________________________________________
ORDER RESERVED ON : 26.2.2014
ORDER PASSED ON : 21.4.2014
ORDER
1. This revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 20.8.2010 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sidhi in Special Case No. 13/2007 whereby the application filed by the complainant under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been partly allowed and on the basis of compromise entered into between the applicant and complainant, the applicant has been acquitted to the charge under Section 341, 294 of the IPC only, however, the application to compound the offence under Section 324 of the IPC has been dismissed.
2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this revision are that complainant Mudrika Prasad Prajapati lodged a report (2) against the applicant on 24.11.2006 regarding wrongful restraint, using filthy language and causing simple injuries by sharp edged weapon. After registration of Crime, during investigation it was found that the complainant was humiliated during the incident by the applicant by using his caste name. The applicant was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 324 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. During the trial, the complainant filed an application under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the aforesaid offences, which has been partly allowed and on the basis of compromise, the applicant has been acquitted to the charge under Section 341, 294 of the IPC but the aforesaid application has been dismissed with respect to the offence under Section 324 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the ground that both the offences are not compoundable, hence this revision.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial Court has committed illegality in interpreting the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, 2005). Though the Amendment Act, 2005 was enacted in the year (3) 2005 but it was further amended as Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Amending Act, 2006) (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act, 2006) whereby it has been enacted that "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (25 of 2005), the Central Government hereby appoints the 23rd June, 2006, as the date on which the provisions of the said Act, except the provisions of Sections 16, 25, 28(a), 28(b), 38, 42(a), 42(b), 42(f)(iii) and (iv) and 44(a), shall come into force."
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that after the aforesaid amendment, the notification of enforcement of Section 28(a) of the Amendment Act, 2005 came into force only on 31.12.2009 by the notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. S.O. 3313(E), dated the 30th December, 2009. Published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) Part II Section 3(ii) dated 30.12.2009 Page 1 (Annexure D-6), therefore, the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC was compoundable till 31.12.2009 and in the instant case, the incident had taken place on 16.11.2006, thus, the trial Court has committed illegality in interpreting the aforesaid notification, therefore, the impugned order be set (4) aside to the extent of compoundability of Section 324 of the IPC only.
5. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State has raised formal objection.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the impugned order, First Information Report (D-2) and the Amendment Act, 2005 (D-4), Amending Act, 2006 (D-5) and notification dated and notification dated 30.12.2009 (D-6). It is true that the Amendment Act, 2005 came into force in the year 2005, however, by the Amending Act, 2006 (D-5) it was inserted that different dates may be appointed for different provisions of enforcement of the Amendment Act, 2005. It reveals from perusal of notification S.O. No. 923 (E) dated 21.6.2006, the other provisions of Act came into force except the provisions of Sections 16, 25, 28(a), 28(b), 38, 42(a), 42(b), 42(f)(iii) and (iv) and 44(a), which shows that Section 28(a) of the Amendment Act, 2005 has not been made enforceable by the aforesaid notification and same has been made enforceable vide notification dated 30.12.2009 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. S.O. 3313(E), dated the 30th December, 2009. It means before 31.12.2009, the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC was compoundable.
(5)
7. Since as per the First Information Report, in the instant case, the incident had taken place on 16.11.2006, therefore, on the date of incident, the offence under Section 324 of the IPC was compoundable and in my opinion, the trial Court has committed illegality in refusing the grant permission to compound the offence under Section 324 of the IPC, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside to that extent only.
8. Consequently, this revision is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 20.8.2010 is hereby set aside to the extent of Section 324 of the IPC only. The concerned trial Court is directed to reconsider the application under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant seeking permission to compound the offence under Section 324 of the IPC and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB