TRILOKCHAND Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant and the petitioner have made a prayer to this Court for permitting them to compound the offence in view of provisions of Section 320(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code for convenience). The petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under provisions of Section 325 of Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- by the trial Court in Cri. Case No. 160/92. However, the lower appellate Court reduced the sentence to the term of R.I. for 3 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of R.I. for further 3 months.

(2.) The petitioner and victim are thickly related with each other. The real sister of the victim has been married to the petitioner. The incident is the result of a quarrel between them on account of grazing the cattle. As per prosecution evidence only one injury has been caused by the petitioner to the victim. Both, victim and the petitioner want to live peacefully, happily as close relatives and, therefore, they have amicably settled their strained relations on account of said solitary incident, as submitted by both Shri Lokesh Bhatnagar and Shri Manoj Soni. They submitted that the petitioner and victim be permitted to compound the offence. Shri Bule submitted that it appears to be a proper course for them to settle their strained relations amicably.

(3.) The villagers are to be encouraged for the purpose of settling their controversies and disputes by amicable settlement. A solitary unfortunate incident causes a trauma in the minds and that - strains the relations of the concerned persons. The scar created by such incident remains in the heart and that creates a distance between the relatives and that grows in the bitter enmity. Amicable settlements have been recognized since long and the disputes in the villages used to be settled amicably before Panchayat and Panch-Committee. That has been now accepted as LOK ADALAT movement. Such matters are being settled amicably before LOK ADALAT and that is the benevolent way of creating friendshipness amongst the parties who are coming to the Court in the litigations. In the present case both, the petitioner and victim are close relatives. If they remain with strained relations, the wife of petitioner and real sister of victim would be a sufferer. Therefore, keeping in view this aspect of the matter the trial Court and the learned lower appellate Court should have tapped the parties and the counsel in view of amicable settlement. At least, this matter should have been placed before LOK ADALAT. It seems that the benefits of amicable settlement did not strike anybody of them, may be, the parties were not in the mood of seytling their disputes. It is never late to mend and now the parties have come to settle their dispute amicably and, therefore, they are praying for permission to do so. In the larger interests of the society and in the interests of justice such permission is hereby granted.