Point of Law: Non-acceptance of compromise would also lead to denial of complete justice which is very essence of our justice delivery system.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner, who stands convicted in the trial for the FIR No.223/2013 registered at Police Station Dhambola, Distt. Dungarpur, has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the judgment of conviction, sentence, charges, and the FIR, based on the compromise with the victim.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Simalwara, Distt. Dungarpur convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence under Sections 457, 354-(A) (2), 354-(G) of IPC vide judgment dt. 27.03.2019. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dungarpur. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was moved by the parties seeking compound the offences but the same was dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide order dt.21.09.2022, which is bad in eye of law.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the respondent No.2/complainant has no objection if the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Sections 354(A)(2), 354(G) IPC is set aside.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the material available on record.

5. Admittedly, the parties have entered into a compromise and the question before this court is whether the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised for quashing of prosecution/ conviction upon compromise between the convict and the complainant.

6. In Khursheed and others v. State of U.P., Appeal (crl.) 1302 of 2007, decided on 28-9-2007, the appellants were convicted by Trial Court under sections 325, 323 read with 34 IPC. Their appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Court and revision petition was also dismissed by High Court. The convicts approached the Apex Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

[12]. An offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325 IPC is covered by sub-section (2) of Section 320 of the Code. It is thus clear that an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC is also compounded with the permission of the Court.

[13]. The parties have compounded the offences. As stated in the compromise deed, Gurfan Ahmad, complainant and his mother Kulsoom @ Bhoori (injured) did not want any action against the appellants (accused). The parties are neighbours, their houses are situated adjacent to each other and they have been living peacefully for last many years and there is no dispute among them. It is further stated that to continue sweet relationship and harmony, complainant side does not want to take any action against the accused. A prayer is, therefore, made to accept the compromise.

[14]. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and considering the Deed of Compromise and having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, ends of justice would be met if we grant necessary permission for compounding an offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC as required by sub-section (2) of Section 320 of the Code. The offence punishable under Section 323 IPC has already been compounded by the parties.

[15]. Sub-section (8) of Section 320 states that the compounding of offence under the section shall have an effect of acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. The resultant effect of compounding of offences would be that the accused should be acquitted. In other words, once the offences have been compounded and the requisite permission is granted by the Court, the accused must be acquitted.”

7. In Dr. Arvind Barsaul etc. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC 794, after the conviction under section 498-A IPC, the victim wife and the convict husband had compromised their disputes, and sought setting aside of conviction based on the compromise. Hon'ble Supreme Court holds as under:

[10]. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The parties have compromised and the complainant Smt. Sadhna Madnawat categorically submitted that she doe