A compromise between convict and complainant does not automatically quash a conviction under non-compoundable offences; judicial discretion is exercised only in rare cases to prevent abuse of justice.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner, who stand convicted in the trial for the FIR No. 0163/2012 registered at Police Station Falna, Distt. Pali, 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. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner for offence under Sections 304(a) & 279 of IPC before the competent court. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dt. 28.09.2015, convicted and sentenced the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 279 , 304-A IPC and Section 146 /196 of M.V. Act.

3. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bali, which is still pending.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2-complainant and the petitioner had entered into a compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat during the pendency of the appeal. An application was also moved by the petitioner before the appellate court seeking compound the offence under Sections 279 , 304-A IPC and Section 146 /196 of M.V. Act but the same was dismissed vide order dt. 01.08.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has concurred the fact of compromise and submitted that these respondents have no objection if the conviction of the petitioner for offence under Sections 279 , 304-A IPC and Section 146 /196 of M.V. Act is set aside.

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

7. 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.

8. 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 Section34 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) o