JAWAHAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein and two other persons were charge-sheeted by the jurisdictional police for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 read with Section 34, 467 read with Section 34, 468 read with Section 34 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(iv) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 alleging that on 23-4-2008, co- accused Pardesi impersonating himself as Ramsai - complainant, who is a member of Scheduled Tribe, got his land (land of Ramsai) transferred in favour of the petitioner herein by executing a sale deed in the office of the Deputy Registrar, Korba and thereby they have committed the aforesaid offences, before the Special Judge (SC / ST Act), Korba. The charges against the petitioner were framed on 11-11-2016 for the aforesaid offences. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application under Section 320(1) of the CrPC for compounding the aforesaid offences in which complainant Ramsai also filed an application for compounding the offence, under Section 320(2) of the CrPC separately as well as jointly with the accused persons for compounding the offence under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC and in which the statement of Ramsai was recorded on 6-1- 2017 and thereafter, by order dated 6-1-2017, the learned Special Judge permitted the offence under Sections 419 & 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC to be compounded and acquitted the petitioner herein under Section 320(8) of the CrPC and one more accused person Rajendra Prasad Yadav finding the compromise to be bona fide, but ultimately, held that the petitioner has also committed offence under Sections 419 & 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC qua the Deputy Registrar, Korba, where the sale deed was produced for registration by co-accused Pardesi and registered in the name of the petitioner, therefore, apart from other offences which have not been compounded, prosecution of the petitioner for offence under Sections 419 & 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC would continue. The petitioner is aggrieved only against this part of the order by which the learned Special Judge has directed continuation of prosecution of the petitioner even for offences under Sections 419 & 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, qua the Deputy Registrar, Korba on the ground that such a prosecution of the petitioner after having been acquitted for offence under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC is impermissible under the law, as the effect of compounding would be the acquittal of the petitioner for the said offences under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC by virtue of the provision contained in Section 320(8) of the CrPC, as such, he cannot be prosecuted in an offence in which he has already been acquitted and the same is in teeth of the provision contained in Section 300(1) of the CrPC read with Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The State/respondents No.1 & 2 filed reply inter alia contending that though the offences punishable under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC have been allowed to be compounded, but offences under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC have also been committed qua the Deputy Registrar, Korba in whose office the alleged offences were committed by the petitioner with complainant Ramsai, as such, the learned Special Judge is absolutely justified in directing continuance of prosecution of the petitioner for offence under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC, qua the Deputy Registrar, Korba, after having acquitted the petitioner qua complainant Ramsai. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the offences of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property i.e. Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC are compoundable under Section 320(2) of the CrPC with the leave of the Court. The person who has been allegedly cheated in the instant case is Ramsai - member of Scheduled Tribe, on whose application for compounding the offences the matter has been considered and the learned Special Judge has rightly allowed the application, and grant of application would have the effect of acquittal of the accused under Section 320(8) of the CrPC which the learned Special Judge has already recorded and once the petitioner has been acquitted for offences under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC by virtue of the provision contained in Section 320(1) of the CrPC, he cannot be further prosecuted as the provision contained in Section 300(1) of the CrPC is based on the general principle of "autrefois convict" read with Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India recognised by the English Court. He would further submit that the offence is one and same and once the petitioner has been acquitted, prosecution for the said offences cannot be allowed to continue and that would be the sheer abuse of the process of the court and that deserves to be quashed to the extent of direction for continuance of prosecution of the petitioner for offence under Sections 419 & 420 of the IPC, qua the Deputy Registrar, Korba, as the petitioner is ready and willing to face the trial for other offences which he has been charged and which have not been compounded by the complainant and the petitioner. He would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, 1953 AIR(SC) 325 and Rajinder Singh v. The State (Delhi Admn.), 1980 AIR(SC) 1200 to buttress his submissions.