O R D E R

The applicants have filed the present petition u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of criminal Case No.696/2017 on the basis of compromise.

The applicants are facing trial u/s. 294, 452, 323, 506 of the IPC. At the final stage of the trial, an application u/s. 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed. Vide order dated 31.8.2021 learned trial Court has partly allowed the application by dropping the charges u/s. 323/34 and 506-II of the IPC but rejected the application for non-compoundable the offences u/s. 294 and 452 of the IPC. Hence the present petition u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court.

Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise has been arrived at and the trial Court is not competent to acquit the applicants on the basis of compromise as the offences u/s. 294 and 452 of IPC which are non-compoundable, hence the applicants are before this Court , as High Court in exercise of powers u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the charges in the light of the judgment of the apex Court rendered in the case of State of M.P. V/s. Laxmi Narayan &

others (Cr. Appeal No.349/2019 decided on 5.3.2019.

Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the complainant has no objection for compounding the above offences as he has signed the application u/s. 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court.

Shri Siddharth Jain, learned Panel Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, opposes the prayer by submitting that the offences punishable under section 294 and 452 are not compoundable. The trial is at the stage of final arguments, but instead of arguing the matter finally, the present application u/s. 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed at the belated stage and the prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and they are supporting the prosecution case, evidence came on record is liable to be considered by the trial Court , not in this petition filed u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

It is correct that now the trial was fixed for final arguments on 8.9.2021. The trial is pending since 2017 and all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and it is not the case of the applicants that witnesses have been turned hostile. Offences u/s. 294 and 452 of IPC are non-compoundable offences. In the case of Shiji @ Pappu & others V/s. Radhika & another : (2011) 10 SCC 705 the apex court has found that the dispute is resolved between the parties and if that being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations, will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. In the present case, the situation is different as the complainant and the prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court in support of the prosecution and it is now for the trial Court to evaluate their evidence.

In the case Murali v. State, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 726 the Supreme Court of India has denied the compounding of offence in view of section 320(9) Cr.P.C. as under :

“8. There can be no doubt that Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“CrPC”) does not encapsulate Sections 324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable offences. Given the unequivocal language of Section 320(9) CrPC which explicitly prohibits any compounding except as permitted under the said provision, it would not be possible to compound the appellants' offences. Notwithstanding thereto, it appears to us that the fact of amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in the quantum of sentence.

11. In later decisions including in Ram Lal v. State of J&K [Ram Lal v. State of J&K, (1999) 2 SCC 213 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 123], Bankat v. State of Maharashtra [Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 343 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 316], Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan [Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 11 SCC 226 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 370] , Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala