The court emphasized the need to discourage assault on public servants and the growing tendency to settle disputes post-conviction for political prospects, highlighting the distinction between the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding and the compounding of offences.

JUDGMENT

V. K. Jadhav,J. - By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This pertains to quashing of the criminal proceeding post-conviction for non-compoundable offence on settlement between the applicants-convicts and respondent no.2-informant.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal application are as follows:

a. Respondent no.2-informant is a public servant. On 13.05.2011 at about 13.00 hrs. in the office of Minor Irrigation, Mukhed, respondent no.2-complainant was busy with his official work. The applicants made a phone call to respondent no.2- complainant, however, he did not receive their phone call. Consequently, both the applicants went to his office and extended beating to him in the office itself. The respondent-informant sustained bleeding injury on his nose. He was rescued by the office staff. The respondent-informant was taken to the hospital. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondent-informant, crime no. 76 of 2011 came to be registered in the concerned police station and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted before the court which is numbered as R.C.C. No. 104 of 2011. Both the accused persons were tried vide R.C.C. No. 104 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 332, 504 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

b. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mukhed, District Nanded, by judgment and order dated 26.06.2013 in R.C.C. No. 104 of 2011, has convicted both the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 332 and 353 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced them under Section 332 r/w 34 of IPC to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w 34 of IPC.

c. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicants have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2013 before the Sessions Court, Mukhed. The said criminal appeal is still pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mukhed. The applicants and respondent no.2-informant filed an application on 05.12.2018 below Exhibit 26 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mukhed praying therein that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement out of the court and thus, the applicants may be acquitted in view of the compromise. By order dated 12.03.2019 passed below Exhibit 26, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mukhed has rejected the application with the observations that the offence punishable under Section 332 of IPC is non-compoundable and as such the parties cannot be permitted to compound the said offence.

d. The applicants-original accused have thus approached this Court by filing the present Criminal Application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the criminal proceeding post-conviction for non-compoundable offence on settlement between them and the informant-complainant.

4. Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the applicants submits that in a case Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Others , 2012 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court while answering the reference, held that quashing of the offence or criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement between an offender and a victim is not the same thing as compounding an offence. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing of a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. The Supreme Court has also observed that the inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limi