Sec.354 of I.P.C. - Offence took place in the year 2000 - whether compoundable- amendment was taken place in the year 2008 declaring as non-compoundable offence - Both parties are living in peace - victim personally impleaded and sought for compromise free of force, coercion etc., -Apex court permitted them to compound and as such set aside the lower court orders and acquit the accused =
In the year 2000 when the offence was committed, Section 451 of the
IPC was compoundable with the permission of the Court by the person in
possession of the house trespassed upon. At that time Section 354 of the
IPC was also compoundable with the permission of the Court by the woman
assaulted to whom the criminal force was used. By the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section 354 of the IPC was
made non-compoundable. The question is, therefore, whether in view of the
compromise this Court should permit compounding of the offence.
5. We notice from the judgment of the Sessions Court that in the
Sessions Court affidavits were filed by respondent No. 2 and her husband
stating that the matter was settled. The Sessions Court did not accept
those affidavits and proceeded to convict the appellant. The High Court
confirmed the conviction.
6. We are mindful of the fact that Section 354 of the IPC is, as of
today, non-compoundable. But, as noticed by us, it was compoundable when
the instant offence was committed with the permission of the court. Even
then, we would have hesitated to permit compounding of the offence. But,
facts of this case are very peculiar. Respondent No.2 and her husband
have, even today, maintained their stand taken in the trial court that they
have entered into a compromise with the appellant. As we have already
noted, respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit to that effect in this Court.
Compromise is, therefore, not an afterthought. Pertinently, the incident
in question took-place way back in the year 2000. About 13 long years
have gone-by. In her affidavit respondent No. 2 has stated that the
appellant is her neighbour and they are staying peacefully since 2000 till
date. We are of the opinion that since the appellant and respondent No. 2
are neighbours it would be in the interest of justice to permit the parties
to compound the offences. If the conviction is confirmed, the relations
may get strained and the peace, which is now prevailing between the two
families, may be disturbed. In the peculiar facts of this case, therefore,
in order to accord quietus to the disputes between the appellant and
respondent No. 2 and in the larger interest of peace, we permit the
appellant and respondent No. 2 to compound the offences. Accordingly,
offences under Sections 451 and 354 of the IPC are permitted to be
compounded. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is
acquitted. The appellant-Bharti is in jail. The appellant-Bharti should be
released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case.
7. The appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.
2014(Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41265
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, MADAN B. LOKUR
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.509 OF 2014
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.371 of 2014]
Bharti ...Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana & Anr. …Respondents
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Faridabad in
Sessions Case No. 12 of 2001 for an offence punishable under Section 451 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer
further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The appellant
was also convicted under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to
further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The substantive
sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Punjab and Haryana High
Court which came to be dismissed and, hence, this appeal.
3. During the hearing of this appeal, this Court was informed that the
appellant and the complainant Smt. Mukesh w/o Shri Rakesh have entered into
a compromise. The appellant filed an application for impleadment of
complainant Smt. Mukesh w/o Shri Rakesh. On 27/1/2014 this Court permitted
impleadment. Thus, the complainant Smt. Mukesh w/o Shri Rakesh is
respondent No. 2 in the present appeal. Affidavit dated 3/10/2013 has
been filed by the complainant stating that with the intervention of
respectable persons of the village and relatives from both sides, the
matter has been compromised between her and the appellant and now there is
no dispute between them, at all. It is further stated that respondent No.
2 and the appellant are neighbours and are living peacefully and no
untoward incident has taken place since 2000. It is further stated that
respondent No. 2 will have no objection if the FIR lodged by her and all
the consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR including the
judgments rendered by the courts below against the appellant, are set
aside. Respondent No. 2 has further stated that she is filing this
affidavit without any pressure or coercion. Learned counsel for the
appellant and respondent No. 2 have confirmed that the parties have entered
into a compromise.
4. In the year 2000 when the offence was committed, Section 451 of the
IPC was compoundable with the permission of the Court by the person in
possession of the house trespassed upon. At that time Section 354 of the
IPC was also compoundable with the permission of the Court by the woman
assaulted to whom the criminal force was used. By the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section 354 of the IPC was
made non-compoundable. The question is, therefore, whether in view of the
compromise this Court should permit compounding of the offence.
5. We notice from the judgment of the Sessions Court that in the
Sessions Court affidavits were filed by respondent No. 2 and her husband
stating that the matter was settled. The Sessions Court did not accept
those affidavits and proceeded to convict the appellant. The High Court
confirmed the conviction.
6. We are mindful of the fact that Section 354 of the IPC is, as of
today, non-compoundable. But, as noticed by us, it was compoundable when
the instant offence was committed with the permission of the court. Even
then, we would have hesitated to permit compounding of the offence. But,
facts of this case are very peculiar. Respondent No.2 and her husband
have, even today, maintained their stand taken in the trial court that they
have entered into a compromise with the appellant. As we have already
noted, respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit to that effect in this Court.
Compromise is, therefore, not an afterthought. Pertinently, the incident
in question took-place way back in the year 2000. About 13 long years
have gone-by. In her affidavit respondent No. 2 has stated that the
appellant is her neighbour and they are staying peacefully since 2000 till
date. We are of the opinion that since the appellant and respondent No. 2
are neighbours it would be in the interest of justice to permit the parties
to compound the offences. If the conviction is confirmed, the relations
may get strained and the peace, which is now prevailing between the two
families, may be disturbed. In the peculiar facts of this case, therefore,
in order to accord quietus to the disputes between the appellant and
respondent No. 2 and in the larger interest of peace, we permit the
appellant and respondent No. 2 to compound the offences. Accordingly,
offences under Sections 451 and 354 of the IPC are permitted to be
compounded. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is
acquitted. The appellant-Bharti is in jail. The appellant-Bharti should be
released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case.
7. The appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.
….…………………………………….J.
(RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
………………………………………..J.
(MADAN B. LOKUR)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 27, 2014.
-----------------------
5
In the year 2000 when the offence was committed, Section 451 of the
IPC was compoundable with the permission of the Court by the person in
possession of the house trespassed upon. At that time Section 354 of the
IPC was also compoundable with the permission of the Court by the woman
assaulted to whom the criminal force was used. By the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section 354 of the IPC was
made non-compoundable. The question is, therefore, whether in view of the
compromise this Court should permit compounding of the offence.
5. We notice from the judgment of the Sessions Court that in the
Sessions Court affidavits were filed by respondent No. 2 and her husband
stating that the matter was settled. The Sessions Court did not accept
those affidavits and proceeded to convict the appellant. The High Court
confirmed the conviction.
6. We are mindful of the fact that Section 354 of the IPC is, as of
today, non-compoundable. But, as noticed by us, it was compoundable when
the instant offence was committed with the permission of the court. Even
then, we would have hesitated to permit compounding of the offence. But,
facts of this case are very peculiar. Respondent No.2 and her husband
have, even today, maintained their stand taken in the trial court that they
have entered into a compromise with the appellant. As we have already
noted, respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit to that effect in this Court.
Compromise is, therefore, not an afterthought. Pertinently, the incident
in question took-place way back in the year 2000. About 13 long years
have gone-by. In her affidavit respondent No. 2 has stated that the
appellant is her neighbour and they are staying peacefully since 2000 till
date. We are of the opinion that since the appellant and respondent No. 2
are neighbours it would be in the interest of justice to permit the parties
to compound the offences. If the conviction is confirmed, the relations
may get strained and the peace, which is now prevailing between the two
families, may be disturbed. In the peculiar facts of this case, therefore,
in order to accord quietus to the disputes between the appellant and
respondent No. 2 and in the larger interest of peace, we permit the
appellant and respondent No. 2 to compound the offences. Accordingly,
offences under Sections 451 and 354 of the IPC are permitted to be
compounded. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is
acquitted. The appellant-Bharti is in jail. The appellant-Bharti should be
released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case.
7. The appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, MADAN B. LOKUR
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.509 OF 2014
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.371 of 2014]
Bharti ...Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana & Anr. …Respondents
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Faridabad in
Sessions Case No. 12 of 2001 for an offence punishable under Section 451 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer
further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The appellant
was also convicted under Section 354 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to
further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The substantive
sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Punjab and Haryana High
Court which came to be dismissed and, hence, this appeal.
3. During the hearing of this appeal, this Court was informed that the
appellant and the complainant Smt. Mukesh w/o Shri Rakesh have entered into
a compromise. The appellant filed an application for impleadment of
complainant Smt. Mukesh w/o Shri Rakesh. On 27/1/2014 this Court permitted
impleadment. Thus, the complainant Smt. Mukesh w/o Shri Rakesh is
respondent No. 2 in the present appeal. Affidavit dated 3/10/2013 has
been filed by the complainant stating that with the intervention of
respectable persons of the village and relatives from both sides, the
matter has been compromised between her and the appellant and now there is
no dispute between them, at all. It is further stated that respondent No.
2 and the appellant are neighbours and are living peacefully and no
untoward incident has taken place since 2000. It is further stated that
respondent No. 2 will have no objection if the FIR lodged by her and all
the consequential proceedings arising out of the said FIR including the
judgments rendered by the courts below against the appellant, are set
aside. Respondent No. 2 has further stated that she is filing this
affidavit without any pressure or coercion. Learned counsel for the
appellant and respondent No. 2 have confirmed that the parties have entered
into a compromise.
4. In the year 2000 when the offence was committed, Section 451 of the
IPC was compoundable with the permission of the Court by the person in
possession of the house trespassed upon. At that time Section 354 of the
IPC was also compoundable with the permission of the Court by the woman
assaulted to whom the criminal force was used. By the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section 354 of the IPC was
made non-compoundable. The question is, therefore, whether in view of the
compromise this Court should permit compounding of the offence.
5. We notice from the judgment of the Sessions Court that in the
Sessions Court affidavits were filed by respondent No. 2 and her husband
stating that the matter was settled. The Sessions Court did not accept
those affidavits and proceeded to convict the appellant. The High Court
confirmed the conviction.
6. We are mindful of the fact that Section 354 of the IPC is, as of
today, non-compoundable. But, as noticed by us, it was compoundable when
the instant offence was committed with the permission of the court. Even
then, we would have hesitated to permit compounding of the offence. But,
facts of this case are very peculiar. Respondent No.2 and her husband
have, even today, maintained their stand taken in the trial court that they
have entered into a compromise with the appellant. As we have already
noted, respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit to that effect in this Court.
Compromise is, therefore, not an afterthought. Pertinently, the incident
in question took-place way back in the year 2000. About 13 long years
have gone-by. In her affidavit respondent No. 2 has stated that the
appellant is her neighbour and they are staying peacefully since 2000 till
date. We are of the opinion that since the appellant and respondent No. 2
are neighbours it would be in the interest of justice to permit the parties
to compound the offences. If the conviction is confirmed, the relations
may get strained and the peace, which is now prevailing between the two
families, may be disturbed. In the peculiar facts of this case, therefore,
in order to accord quietus to the disputes between the appellant and
respondent No. 2 and in the larger interest of peace, we permit the
appellant and respondent No. 2 to compound the offences. Accordingly,
offences under Sections 451 and 354 of the IPC are permitted to be
compounded. The impugned judgment is set aside. The appellant is
acquitted. The appellant-Bharti is in jail. The appellant-Bharti should be
released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case.
7. The appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.
….…………………………………….J.
(RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
………………………………………..J.
(MADAN B. LOKUR)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 27, 2014.
-----------------------
5
