Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Relevant Sections 279 and Section 338 of I.P.C. read thus:

"279. Rash driving or riding on a public way._ whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both:
Classification of Offence._ The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with permission of the court before which any prosecution of such offence is pending and triable by any magistrate.

7. After minute reading of both these sections, it is seen that the alleged act of rash and negligent driving, endangering human life, is required to be proved as necessary ingredient to constitute offence u/s 279 I.P.C. and by allegedly doing any act rashly or negligently as to endangering the human life are also the same ingredients to constitute the offence u/s 338 I.P.C. Therefore, such ingredients which are common, cannot be separately dealt with. The requirement of offence u/s 338 is all that is covered in section 279 of IPC. As specifically mentioned in the Code, when the offence u/s 338 is compoundable, there cannot be any impediment or bar to hold that the alleged offence u/s 279 of I.P.C. read with 338 of IPC could also be compounded. It is not a different act complained of to constitute a separate offence but are the essential ingredients of section 338 of I.P.C. in the present case. In short, the offence u/s 338 I.P.C. is compoundable with permission of the Court, which, amounts to acquittal. After such compounding with the consent of 5 apl124-11 the aggrieved party-injured complainant, the accused cannot be prosecuted or tried for the same act which are complained of by different title or head u/s 279 of I.P.C. Though it may not be a second trial, but the accused, who is once acquitted from the charge u/s 338 IPC upon compounding of the charge based on the same evidence, would be vexed, if he is directed to under go further trial u/s 279 for lesser punishment. Thus, by the present application, the applicant has made out a case for compounding of offence.

However, the present application is filed by the accused alone and not by the complainant who is the complainant since aggrieved person in a complaint case, and therefore he alone has a right to compounding. Merely because the complainant is made as party-

respondent no.2 and having filed his affidavit in support of the application would not be enough. The matter needs to be verified by the court for compounding, which is like a compromise for desired order or judgment of acquittal by the Court so as to put an end to the proceedings. Both the parties are, therefore, directed to appear before the trial Court because this Court would not record evidence or verify compromises. It is the trial court who is competent to record evidence and verify the compromise for compounding, if satisfied. After compounding of the offence u/s 338 of I.P.C. which amounts to acquittal of accused in law, in my opinion in the present case, such charge sheet u/s 279 of I.P.C alone would sustain in law 6 apl124-11 for further continuation of proceedings or trial on the basis of same evidence for section 338 of I.P.C.

8. Since both the parties have submitted that the charge sheet is ready and it is going to be filed in the next week, I therefore, direct the parties to appear before the learned Magistrate's Court.

Liberty is given to both the parties to file a joint purshis/application for compounding of the offence u/s 338 IPC. So far as Section 279 IPC is concerned, that would give rise to some difficulty despite the observation made by this Court and the parties would be harassed and troubled. In order to avoid that, I am satisfied that once the offence u/s 338 IPC is compounded, nothing survives for trying the offence u/s 279 IPC. The FIR or Charge sheet for additional section 279 would be meaningless when the cognizace is taken u/s 338 of IPC. The proceedings for the offence u/s 279 IPC, therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.