The High Court can quash convictions for non-compoundable offences when the parties have amicably settled their disputes, preserving justice and social harmony.

ORDER :

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

1. These interlocutory applications are filed for recording the compromise arrived at between the accused/petitioner and the de facto complainant/2^nd respondent, and seeking permission to compound the offence under Section 326 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, “IPC”), in C.C. No.559 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent. Perused the impugned order.

3. The instant present Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment, dated 18.02.2009, passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.A. No.52 of 2008. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in C.C. No.559 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla, Guntur District, and was charged for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC and by judgment passed under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C., convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

4. The learned counsel for the parties submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and in pursuance of the settlement deed, they have filed a joint memo of compromise. It is further submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the same may be taken on record and the conviction recorded against the petitioner may be set aside by compounding the offence.

5. Perused the joint memo filed by both the parties. On a plain reading of Section 320 of Cr.P.C., it appears that the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable. However, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,

“58. Where High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all