VIRENDRA KADERE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 3.7.2014 to the extent the "Rajinama" was not accepted in toto and they were not acquitted from the charge under section 324 IPC.

(2.) Admittedly, the court below compounded the offence under section 294 IPC pursuant to "Rajinama" filed by the parties. However, the offence under section 324 IPC was not compounded because it is not covered under section 320 CrPC. It is contended that this Court in exercise of power under section 482 CrPC can do it. If the proceedings are permitted to continue, it will cause more harm than good and it will not be in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue said criminal case. It is further urged that the dispute was personal in nature and, therefore, same may be permitted to be compounded.

(3.) Shri Vijay Sunderam, learned Panel Lawyer submits that the dispute between the parties was private in nature.