ORAL JUDGMENT :- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties. Respective Counsel waive notice for Rule.

2. The present petition is filed by original accused for quashing the proceeding initiated against them being Regular Criminal Case No. 33712002 in respect of offences punishable under section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The relevant facts for purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioners were prosecuted by the respondent No. 2 for offences punishable under sections 326, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the conclusion of the trial, learned 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna by his order dated 1-10-2003 convicted the petitioners of the offence punishable under section 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer R. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 10001- each, in default to suffer S.I. for one month. The petitioners were, however, acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2003 before the Court of Sessions. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners and respondent No.1 (original complainant) presented an application for compounding of the offence (Exhibit 24) and an application to seek permission to compound the offence as contemplated by section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon hearing both the parties, learned 4th Ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalna was pleased to reject this application for compounding of the offence by his order dated 31-3-2006. In view of the adverse order passed by the appellate Judge, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the proceeding.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the peculiar circumstances where the parties have compromised the offence and desired to lead future life in harmony, it is necessary that the proceeding be quashed. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of B. S. Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386. In that case also, there was compromise between the parties. Considering this fact and with an object to ensure that the parties maintain cordial relations in future, the Apex Court was pleased to quash the F.I.R. There

cannot be any dispute about the dictum. In para 15 of the report the Apex Court has observed that -

"In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FJ.R. or complaint and section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the Code."

Sections 320 and 482 of the Code operate in different fields. In this background, the Apex Court has held that section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect inherent powers of the Court which can be exercised in pursuance of section 482 of the Code. This decision, however, is not applicable to the facts of the present Case.

6. In the present case, the petitioners are convicted for an offence punishable under section 326 of the Penal Code which is non-compoundable. Thus, sub-section (5) of section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order of learn appellate Judge, rejecting the application for permission to compound t offence, which is non-compoundable. The Apex Court had an occasion to d this aspect in the matter of Surendra Nath Mohanty vs. State of Orissa rported . AIR 1999 se 2181. Dealing with similar situation and holding that the offence cannot be compounded in violation of the mandate, section 320(9) of the Code Criminal Procedure, 1973, Their Lordship observed in para 8 of the report that:

"However, considering the fact that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and the fact that 10 years have elapsed from the date of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document