SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(SC) 938

L.M.SHARMA, A.P.SEN
Nazidalishah – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent


ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. We see no reason why the application moved by the appellants under Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should not be granted. Appellant 2 Rabushan is a fakeer of the locality and the appellants and the complainants are close neighbours. Apparently the parties now bear good relations and want to preserve peace and amity in the neighbourhood and want leave of the court to compound the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is no doubt whatever that the appellants were guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore the offence can be allowed to be compounded subject to terms.

3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The parties are allowed to compound the offence and the judgment and sentence passed by the High Court and the courts below convicting the appellants under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside, on condition that they pay Rs 1000 each to PW 2 Shabirah and PW 7 Mst. Afsarbi as compensation for the injuries sustained by them within two months from today. Failure to comply with this condition will entail restoration of the judgment and sentence pass

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top