BABU NARSING RATHOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed on behalf of the accused on rejection of their application by the learned VIth Assistant Sessions Judge rejecting their application for permission to compound the offence in Sessions case No.183/1992. The learned trial judge rejected the applications firstly on the ground that the offence alleged against the accused is not compoundable and secondly the complainant is dead and as such all aggrieved persons are not before the court. The injured persons desire to compound the offence. It was therefore, thought it fit by the court below that this is not a fit case where permission can be granted.

(2.) ON hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it seems to me that the plea put forward for seeking permission to compound the offence could have been considered when the parties are related to each other and they have decided to live in peace as they are residing in the same village. There cannot be any dispute that though the offence is not compoundable in law, yet the parties can pray before the court to treat it as a Special case, to compound the offence, if the circumstances so exist. ON going through the nature of the case and the circumstances under which the offence is committed, I think that it would be proper that the trial court shall permit them to compound the offence. It makes no difference if the informant is dead when the aggrieved persons who are injured persons are seeking permission to compound the offence. It is, therefore, directed that the learned trial Judge shall accord permission to compound the offence after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties and after being satisfied that the compromise as agreed between the parties is proper. The parties if they want may file additional documents. The application is granted. The parties are directed to remain present before the court below on or before 30th April, 1996. Order accordingly.