Umesh Rai and Others vs State of Bihar and Others

Abhijit Sinha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for OP. No. 2. The three petitioners who along with others have been impleaded as accused in Complaint Case No. 128 of 2006 are aggrieved by order dated 12.9.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 323 and 313 I.P.C. against these three petitioners only.

The grievance of the petitioners is that Munni Devi, the wife of the complainant (O.P. No. 2 herein), suffered miscarriage due to the overt acts of the petitioners but in fact the petitioners are no way responsible for the alleged miscarriage or even assaulting her. Et has also been submitted that the parties have realized their mistake and have filed a compromise petition in the Court below so that the further proceedings either be dropped or the accused be acquitted.

The learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 has accepted the fact of compromise having been entered into and he is also agreeable that the matter having been amicably settled and all disputes between the parties having been resolved, the further proceedings in the said case be dropped or an order of acquittal against the petitioners be recorded.

In support of these submissions both the parties have submitted that where the parties were no longer interested in proceeding with the case, the F.I.R. may be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

The fact of the parties having entered into a compromise is not in dispute but there is another aspect of the matter.

Section 320 Cr.P.C. provides that offences punishable under the sections of the Penal Code 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. A perusal of Section 320 Cr.P.C. discloses that an offence u/s 323 I.P.C. is compoundable but an offence u/s 313 I.P.C. is not compoundable. Therefore, the consent given by the complainant or the joint compromise petition filed by the parties could not be utilized for the purpose of recording a finding of acquittal or dropping of the prosecution case in favour of the petitioners.

It is by now well settled by several decisions of the Apex Court that the compromise between the parties can be taken into account for determining the quantum of sentence or for reducing the sentence. In Surendra Nath Mohanty and Anr Vs. State of Orissa, it was observed that in view of the legislative mandate contained in Section 320 Cr.P.C. an offence can be compounded only in accordance with the provisions of the said section and following the view taken in Ram Pujan and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, and having regard to the fact that the parties had compromised and period of 10 years had elapsed from the date of the institution reduced the sentence to 5 years R.1. imposed under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. to the period of sentence already under-gone. Even in the case of Hasi Mohan Barman and Another Vs. State of Assam and Another, , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have followed the view taken in the case of Surendra Nath Mohanty (supra) and Ram Pujan (supra).

In that view of the matter it would only be appropriate that the compromise petition be entertained by the Trial Court only in computing the sentence in the event the petitioners are convicted to the aforesaid case. With the aforesaid observations this application is dismissed.