MRS F M TORPEY Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Torpey, manager of a local hotel, has applied in revision from a conviction under Section 341, I.P.C. Apart from anything else interference would be necessary, because the order of the lower Court is contrary to law. She was convicted of two offences under Secs.379 and 341 and a sentence of fine was imposed. The appellate Court set aside the conviction under Section 379, but still upheld the same order of fine. This amounted to an enhancement of the sentence imposed by the trial Court and was contrary to the provisions of Section 423(1)(b) of the Criminal P. C..

(2.) The point taken by Mr. Saila Nath is that the offence under Section 341 was compounded. It appears that the complainant, Mr. Barkar, was considered by the applicant to be an unprofitable visitor at her hotel, and she desired that; he should depart. As an amicable settlement was not arrived at, on the afternoon of the 28th she put a lock on his room and directed her servants to prevent his entering into the compound. Obviously Mr. Barker was a person not likely to submit tamely to such a treatment and he sought the help of the police. The parties finally went to the Superintendent of Police, Mr. Hollins, and, it was agreed there that if Mr. Barker left the hotel that night Mrs. Torpey will not only remit the entire sum due from him for board and lodging up to date, but will pay him a sum of Rs. 10. Mr. Hollins thought that eviction at 100 clock at night would be hard on Mr. Barker, so he got the parties to agree to the terms that Mr. Barker should leave on the afternoon of the 29 and Mrs. Torpey in consideration thereof and her past conduct should forgo her bill. The complainant admitted in his cross-examination that there was a compromise that he should leave on the 29 in the afternoon and no dues would be charged. The lower appellate Court refused to accept the compromise on the ground that the complaint was filed subsequent to the alleged compromise and not prior thereto. An offence under Section 341 may be compounded without the permission of the Court under Section 345(1) of the Criminal P. C.. It, therefore, does not seam to be necessary that a composition should be arrived at after a complaint has been filed in Court. The words of the section are The offence punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code specified in the first column of the table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column (SIC)table.

(3.) An offence of wrongful restraint is compoundable by the person restrained. This appears to be the view suggested by the wording of the section and is supported by a Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in the case of Kumaraswami Chetty V/s. Kuppuswami Chetty [1918] 41 Mad. 685. The learned Judges there observed: An offence is complete when the acts constituting it have been committed apart from whether any complaint or charge has been laid before the Court or not. The allusion to the "accused" in paragraph 6 of Section 345 only describes his character at the time of the trial when the question of the effect of the composition is under consideration.