JUDGMENT

1. The charge sheet in FIR bearing No. 7/2013 dated 01.02.2013, registered with Police Station, Ramban, was filed against the respondent Nos. 3 to 17 on 29.07.2013 in the court of learned Sub-Judge (JMIC), Batote for commission of offences under sections 307, 147, 148, 427, 326, 323 and 201 RPC. The same was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ramban on same date itself. Learned Sessions Judge Ramban vide order dated 29.03.2014 discharged the respondent Nos. 3 to 17 for commission of offence under section 307 RPC and charged them for offences under sections 147, 148, 427, 336 and 323 RPC. Simultaneously, the challan was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge), Batote (hereafter to be referred as “the trial court”).

2. In the charge sheet, 29 witnesses were cited by the prosecution to prove its case. Learned trial court after framing of charge, examined 11 witnesses i.e. PW-3 Gurmeet Singh, PW-4 Mohd. Rashid Malik, PW-5 Tahir Mehmood Magray, PW-6 Mohd. Yasir, PW-7 Sarfraz Ahmed, PW-17 Subash Chander, PW-18 Mohan Lal, PW-19 Abdul Rahid, PW-20 Aman Malik, PW-21 Gopal Singh. However, the person who had lodged the report i.e. PW-1 David Wood House and the respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 9 filed an application for compounding the offences. The learned trial court recorded the statements of some of the accused, PW-1 David Wood House and PW-3 Gurmeet Singh and thereafter vide order dated 17.09.2014 compounded the offences and consigned the chargesheet to record after closing the proceedings.

3. The petitioner, who claims to be the one of the injured persons and witness in the charge sheet, has impugned the order dated 17.09.2014 on the grounds inter alia that the learned trial court has observed that the offences under section 147 and 148 RPC are compoundable in nature whereas they are non-compoundable offences and the complainant in this case was Project Director, namely, Bruce Neave, who could have only appeared as a witness. It is also urged by the petitioner that the offence under section 323 RPC is compoundable under section 345 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) only by the person to whom the hurt is caused and the petitioner being injured, was never called by the trial court for recording his statement during the trial and he had never entered into any compromise with the respondent Nos. 3 to 17.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions made in the memo of petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 17 has not been able to persuade this Court in respect of the validity of the order impugned and in fact, has conceded that the order may not be sustainable in the eyes of law.

6. Mr. Eishan Dadhichi, learned counsel appearing for official respondents has supported the case of the petitioner during the course of arguments.

7. Heard and perused the record.

8. Section 345 Code, as was applicable at the relevant point of time provides for compounding of offences. Section 323 RPC is compoundable by the person to whom the hurt is caused. So far as offences under Sections 147 and 148 RPC are concerned, they are not compoundable in nature.

9. So far as present case is concerned, as per the injury forms forming part of the charge sheet, five persons have suffered injuries, namely, Tausif Mir, Maqsood Ahmed, Bashir Ahmed, Abdul Rashid and Gurmeet Singh and they have been cited as witnesses in the charge sheet, as is evident from the list of witnesses.

10. The petitioner is one of the injured cited as PW-13 in the list of witnesses.

Out of abovementioned five injured persons, only PW Gurmeet Singh cited as PW-3, has deposed in respect of the compromise with the respondent Nos. 3 to 17. PW-1 David Wood House has also deposed in respect of compromise. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner was never summoned by the trial court and as such, there is no question of the petitioner having deposed in respect of the compromise with th