The court affirmed that compromises post-conviction do not automatically quash convictions for non-compoundable offenses, but may be considered in appeals.

ORDER

1. The petitioners, who stand convicted in the trial for the FIR No.39/2011 registered at Police Station Rawatsar, have 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 petitioners submits that the respondent No.2-complainant and the petitioners had entered into a compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat during the course of trial but the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh, while acquitting the petitioners of offences under Sections 341, 323/34 of IPC on the basis of compromise, convicted and sentenced them for offence under Section 326/34 IPC vide judgment and order dt. 09.04.2021. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, Hanumangarh. An application was also moved by the petitioners before the appellate court seeking compound the offence under Section 326/34 of IPC but the same was dismissed vide order dt. 08.02.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the respondent No.2/complainant has no objection if the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Sections 326/34 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