Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: cr.p.c. section 320 in Ram Ratan Lal Rajgarhia And Pradeep ... vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 20 September, 2007Matching Fragments
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:
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.