Bhaskar Brijwasi & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand

N.S. Dhanik, J

Consequent upon the FIR lodged by the complainant Harish Mehra against the revisionists, the police investigated the matter and thereafter submitted

the chargesheet. The trial court, vide its judgment and order dated 17.12.2013, acquitted the revisionist no. 1 Bhaskar Brijwasi of the charges of

offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342, 384, 420 IPC and also acquitted the revisionist no. 2 Shekhar Brijwasi of the charges of offences under

Sections 323, 504, 506, 342, 384 IPC. Appeal preferred against the judgment and order of the trial court was allowed by the appellate court vide its

judgment and order dated 6.11.2019 and revisionist no. 1 Bhaskar Brijwasi was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 323, 504,

506, 342, 384, 420 IPC, while the revisionist no. 2 Shekhar Brijwasi was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342,

384 IPC. Being aggrieved, the revisionists have filed the present revision.

Now, parties have filed the joint compounding application (CRMA 4076/2020) stating that they have entered into compromise and amicably settled

their dispute and now complainant does not have any grievance with the revisionists. Both the parties have filed their respective affidavits verifying the

above facts. Revisionist no. 1 Bhaskar Brijwasi and the revisionist no. 2 Shekhar Brijwasi as well as the complainant/victim Harish Mehra, duly

identified y their respective Counsels, put in their appearance through video conferencing and ratified the above facts. It has been further stated by the

parties that now they are living peacefully and have cordial relations with each other. Therefore, learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that

the revision may be decided in terms of the compromise.

Offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 342, 420 IPC are compoundable. However, the offence under Section 384 IPC is non-compoundable. Learned

State Counsel objected to the compounding application stating that offence under Section 384 IPC is non-compoundable. However, learned Counsel

for the revisionists and complainant submitted that the offence under Section 384 IPC can also be compounded. Reliance is placed upon the judgments

of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi, (2003) 4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant, (2008) 9 SCC 677; and Manoj Sharma, (2008) 16 SCC. In

these three decisions, the Hon’ble Apex Court indirectly permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the legal proposition propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the compounding

application is allowed. Compromise arrived at between the parties is accepted. Revision is allowed in terms of the compromise. Consequently,

impugned judgment and order dated 6.11.2019 is set aside so far as the same relate to the present revisionists.

Inform the court concerned accordingly.