STATE OF U P Vs. CHANDRAPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State, under Sections 417 and 423 of the Criminal P. C. , against the acquittal of the respondents, on the charge under Section 147, Penal Code. On 8. 11. 1963, Mahabir Singh lodged the first in. formation report under Section 323 lead with Section 323 of the Penal Code. The police after due investigation submitted the charge sheet against the respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 823 and 506, Penal Code. The Magistrate who tried the case, framed the charges only under Sections 147 and 323 read with Section 149, Penal Code. No evidence was recorded in the case. The parties filed a compromise, and the Magistrate under his order dated 5th February, 1985, acquitted the accused of both the charges with the following observations:. . . The offence under Section 323, Penal Code is compoundable without permission and presents no difficulty. Regarding the offence under Section 147, Penal Code which is not compoundable parties have been heard at length and it has been argued by the learned defence counsel that in spite of the fact that the offence under Section 147, Penal Code is non-compoundable as the common object of the assembly was to assault Mahabir Singh and that object by virtue of the compounding of the offence under Section 323, Penal Code no more remains an object within the meaning of Section 141, Penal Code which defines unlawful assembly and as the offence under Section 147, Penal Code fails the accused are entitled to acquittal. . . . The Patna authority has therefore to be accepted and as because of the compounding of the offence under Section 323, Penal Code, the charge under Section 147, Penal Code also fails, it will be a waste of time to proceed with the trial and examine witnesses as the very object of the assembly is not a 'common object' within the meaning of Section 141, Penal Code now and there remains nothing to be tried as regards the accused are concerned. There being no offence in existence in the eye of law the trial cannot proceed in spite of the provisions of Section 251a (7 ). Criminal P. C. The present appeal is directed against that order. Its validity was attacked on the ground that only the offence under Section 323, Penal Code, was compoundable, and the Court below erred in acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 147, Penal Code, which was non-compoundable.

(2.) THIS appeal came up for hearing before Nigam, J. On behalf of the respondents reliance was placed on a single Judge decision of this Court, in Ramesh Chandra v. State 1966 All WR (HC) 606, where the learned Judge stated:. . . Sections 147 and 148, Penal Code simpliciter are, however, not compoundable, but as they are tasked on in the present case to Sections 324 and 325, Penal Code under which the accused person's acquittal has been ordered, their conviction under Sections 147 and 143, Penal Code which had for its common object the committing of the assault on the complainant, cannot be sustained and their acquittal thereunder, has also to be ordered. Brother Nigam did hot agree with that view, and directed that the matter be laid before a Division Bench. So, this appeal has come up for hearing before this Bench. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) WE may say at the outset that with respect we also do not agree with the view taken by Takru, J. , in 1966 All WR (HC) 606 (supra ). Section 345 (1), Criminal P. C. prescribes that the offences thereunder specified may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of the appended table. By Sub-section (2) provision is made for the compounding of the offences specified in the first column of the table appended to this sub-section by certain persons with the permission of the Court, before which any prosecution for the offence is pending. Sub-section (6) further lays down: The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded. It is therefore clear that to have the effect of an acquittal the offence compounded must be one specified either under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2 ). It is not disputed that the offence under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, is not compoundable under either of the two sub-sections. A composition is an arrangement or settlement of differences between the injured party and the person against whom the complaint is made. An incomplete or illegal arrangement will not amount to an actual acquittal within the meaning of the law. It is against public policy to compound a non compoundable offence. The Legislature has laid down the test for determining the classes of offences which concern individuals only as distinct from those which have reference to the interest of the State and Courts of law cannot go beyond that test and substitute for it one of their own. It is the duty of a criminal Court to refuse the composition or withdrawal of the prosecution, if the case is non-compoundable. The question of a case being compoundable or not must be decided with reference to the state of facts existing at the date of the application to compound. It is not possible for the Court to see what the ultimate result of the case will be.