1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Cr.M.P.No.349 of 2021

Kamta Prasad Navendra, aged about 53 years, S/o Late

Tejram Navendra, R/o Puri, Thana Charama, Distt.

Uttar Baster Kanker (CG)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Charama,

Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker (CG)

2. Pemin Bai, aged about 48 years, W/o Kailashnath

Bhuarya, By Caste Halba, Distt.Uttar Baster Kanker

(CG)

----Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Mr.Parag Kotecha, Advocate

For Respondent No.1

:

Mr.Jitendra Pali, Dy.A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order on Board

9.4.2021

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through

video conferencing.

2. Heard on admission and I.A. No. 1, application for

grant of stay.

3. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for offences under

Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section

3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1989'). During

pendency of charge-sheet, the petitioner and

respondent No.2/complainant filed an application under

2

Section 320(2) read with Section 320(8) of the CrPC to

compound the offences. Learned Special Judge

(Atrocities), Uttar Bastar Kanker by order dated

18.1.2021 only permitted the petitioner to compound

the offence under Section 406 of the IPC and on

19.1.2021 learned Special Judge framed the charges for

offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC

and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989, which has been

called in question by the petitioner in this writ

petition.

4. Mr.Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioner,

would submit that the parties have settled their

dispute on the basis of compromise and therefore, the

matter ought to have closed by learned Special Judge.

5. Mr.Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General for

respondent No.1/State, would submit that there is no

provisions for compounding the offence under Section

3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 and it has rightly been not

compounded by learned Special Judge and furthermore,

order framing charge dated 19.1.2021 is revisiable and

therefore, against that part of order, the petition

under Section 482 of the CrPC would not be

maintainable.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made hereinabove

3

and also went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

7. Chapter XXIV of the Code includes Section 320 of the

Code which provides compounding of offence, thus,

compounding of an offence is statutorily provided

under Section 320 of the Code.

8. A close and careful reading of Section 320 of the

Code, it would appear that there are two categories of

the offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code

which have been made compoundable; first category of

the offence as provided under Section 320(1) of the

Code, the leave of the Court for compounding of

offences is not required, whereas offence as provided

Section 320(2) of the Code, leave of the Court is

required for compounding of offence. But in both the

categories of offences, compounding of offence can

take place at the instance of persons mentioned in the

Third Column of the table. According to the 3^rd column

of the table, compounding can only be possible at the

instance of the person who is either a complainant or

who has been injured or is aggrieved.

9. Sub-sections (4)(a) and (4)(b) of Section 320 of the

Code also reiterate the same principle that in case of

compounding, the person competent to compound, must be

represented in a manner known to law.

4

10.

Sub-Section (9) of Section 320 which is relevant

in this connection is set out below:

“No offence shall be compounded except as

provided by this Section.”

11. The aforesaid provision came-up for consideration

before the Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal an