Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 119
CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Sanjay K. Agarwal, J.
Gajra Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
Crl. M. P. No. 1126 of 2014
The offence under Section 354 IPC is non-compoundable following amendments to the Cr.P.C., 1973.
Headnote:The judgment concerns the petitioner charged under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, whose application to compound the offence was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate on the basis that it is non-compoundable as per the amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, invoked by the State. The court holds that the rejection of the application by the Magistrate was justified due to the non-compoundable nature of the offence as established by the above-mentioned amendment. The petition was dismissed at the admission stage.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner charged under non-compoundable offence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the compoundability of the offence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's justification for the dismissal based on legal amendments. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final ruling on the petition. (Para 8) |
1. The petitioner is facing trial for commission of offence punishable under S.354 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C. - ).
2. The petitioner and victim both have jointly made an application under S.320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C. - ) seeking leave to compound the said offence before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg.
3. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg by its order dated 11/03/2014 held that the offence is not compoundable and the application came to be rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the offence is compoundable with the leave of the Court and therefore, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg is liable to be set - aside.
5. Learned counsel for the State / respondent would submit that by S.23(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act No. 05 of 2009 w.e.f. 31/12/2009), it has been made non - compoundable.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Table appended to S.320 of the Cr.P.C. suffered amendment by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 and by virtue of S.23(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 in sub-section (2), said table has been substituted and S.354 has been omitted, meaning thereby S.354 of the I.P.C. has been made non - compoundable. The said amendment has been notified under sub-section (2) of S.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 w.e.f. 31/12/2009 vide Notification No. S.O. 3313(E), dated 30/12/2009, published in 2010 the Chhattisgarh State & Central Law Times, [Part II Page 3]. Thus, the offence registered against the petitioner under S.354 of the I.P.C.is non - compoundable w.e.f. 31/12/2009 and cannot be compoundable with the leave of the Court under S.320 of the Cr.P.C, and as such, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg is absolutely justified in dismissing the application holding it to be non - compoundable, I do not find any merit in the petition.
8. The petition deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed at admission stage.
Petition dismissed.
