KHURSHEED AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

    /




I
                            KHURSHEED AND ANR.                                 A
                                      v.
                            STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

                              SEPTEMBER 28, 2007
                                                                               B
                [C.K. THAKKER AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.)


             Code o/Criminal Procedure, 1973:
             ss. 320(1), (2) and (BJ-Compounding of offences-Conviction C
        u/ss. 323134 and 325134 !PC-Jn appeal before Supreme Court,
        compromise petition filed and permission for compounding sought-
        HELD: Offence u/s 323 is compoundable at the instance of victim,
        permission ofCourt is not necessary-Offence u/s 325 is compoundable
        with permission of Court-Compounding of offence permitted and D
        accused ordered to be acquitted.

              In the instant appeal filed against the judgment and order of the
        High Com1 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous
        imprisonment for six months u/s. 325 r/w s. 34 IPC and conviction and E
        sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months u/s. 323 r/w s. 34
        IPC, as modified by the Sessions Judge in an appeal filed by the accused,
        it was submitted on behalf of the accused-appellants that since the
        matter was compromised and amicable settlement arrived at between
        the accused persons and the victim-complainants, the compounding may F
        be allowed.

             Allowing the appeal, the Court

             HELD: 1.1. An offence of causing hurt punishable under Section
        323 IPC falls under sub-section (1) ofSection 320 ofthe Code of Criminal G
        Procedure, 1973. It is compoundable at the instance of the person to
        whom the hurt is caused. Permission of the Court is not necessary. Since
        the parties have compounded, the act of compounding is in accordance
        with law. [Para 10) [493-C]
                                         489                                    H
    490           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2007] 10 S.C.R.
                                                                              \_
A        1.2. An offence ofcausing grievous hurt punishable under Section
  325 IPC is covered by sub-section (2) of' Section 320 of the Code, and
  is, thus, compounded with the permission of the Court. The parties have
  compounded the offences. As stated in the compromise deed,
  complainant and his mother (injured) did not want any action against
B the appellants (accused). The parties are neighbours, their houses are
  situated adjacent to each other and they have been living peacefully for
  the last many years and there is no dispute among them. It is further
  stated that to continue sweet relationship and harmony, complainant side
  does not want to take any action against the accused.
C                                      . [Paras 12and13) .[493-F,G; 494-A)

        1.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and
  considering the deed ofcompromise, ends of justice would be met if
  necessary permission is granted for compounding the offence punishable
D under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC as required by sub-section
  (2) of Section 320 of the Code. The offence punishable under Section
  323 IPC has already been compounded by the parties.
                                                    [Paral4] [494-B,C)

      .1.4. The resultant effect of compounding of offences u/s. 320(8) Cr.
E P.C. would be that once the offences have been compounded and the
  requisite permission is granted by the Court, the accused must be
  acquitted. Compounding of offence is permitted and the appellants are
  ordered to be acquitted. (Paras 15and16) [494-D, E]
F       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    1302of2007.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.2006 of the High Court
    ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Crl: Revision No. 627 of2001.
          Ashok Kumar Sharma for fu,e Appellant~.
G
       · T. N. Singh, Rajeev Dubey, Kamlendra Misra, Jatinder Kumar
    Bhatia and Vishnu Sharma for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
     /


 I            KHURSHEED v. STATE OF U.P. [THAK.KER, J.]                     491


              C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted.                                  A
              2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by the
         High Court ofUttaranchal at Nainital on March 24, 2006 in Criminal
         Revision No. 627 of2001. By the said order, the High Court dismissed
         the Revision and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed B
         by the Ilnd Assistant Session Judge, Roorkee on January 28, 1992 and
         confirmed by the District and Session Judge, Haridwar on June 9, 1992.
               3. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that according to the
         prosecution, on May 7, 1989 at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning, one
         Mahmood Hassan was returning to his house after offering a prayer C
         (namaz). He met Zahoor, Khursheed, Naseem and Islam who assaulted
         him. When Smt. Kulsoom @ Bhoori, wife of Mahmood Hassan
         attempted to save her husband, she was also assaulted. Injuries were
         sustained by both of them. The incident was witnessed by Islam, Waseel
         Ahmed and others. A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by D
         Gufran Ali, son of Mahmood Hassan on the same day at Jhabreda Police
         Station. The injured Mahmood Hassan and his wife Smt. Kulsoom were
         medically examined at Civil Hospital, Roorkee. The Doctor opined that
         all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. After completion
         of police investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused E
         persons and charge was framed for offences punishable under Sections
         325 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

~-
               4. The trial Court, vide its judgment and order dated January 28,
         1992, convicted Khursheed and Islam (Accused Nos. 2 and 4) for F
         offences punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC and
         sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
         and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment
         for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with
         Section 34 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
                                                                                  G
               5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the
         accused preferred an appeal in the Sessions Court, Haridwar. The learned
         Sessions Judge upheld the conviction of the accused but reduced sentence
         from one year to six months for offence punishable under Section 325
                                                                                   H
    492           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2007] 10· S.C.R.


A read with Section 34 IPC with fine of Rs. 500/- each and from six months
  to three months for offence punishable under Section 323 read with
  Section 34 IPC. The challenge to the said conviction and sentence was
  unsuccessful and the High Court, as stated above, confirmed the order
  of conviction and sentence passed by the lower appellate Court.
B
        6. When the matter was placed before the learned Chamber Judge
  of this Court, a statement was made that the parties had settled the matter
  and since the offences were compoundable, compromise could be                  """'\
  recorded. A Deed of Compromise was also placed on record. But, since
C there was no affidavit filed in support thereof, the learned Chamber Judge
  permitted the appellants to file 'regular compromise petition'. The matter
  was, therefore, adjourned.
          7. Again, the matter appeared on board on August 4, 2006 when
    the following order was passed:
D
               "A Memorandum of Compromise has been filed before this
           Court which in effect, is a prayer for compounding the offence.
           The same has been signed by the complainant as well as by one
           of the injured witnesses, the other having died.
E              Issue notice to Gufran, the complainant. On account of old age
           of the lady namely Kulsoom, we do not require her presence at
           this stage. The aforesaid Gufran may appear in person or through
           his advocate.
p          Issue notice on the application for condonation of-delay also.
              In the meantime, the petitioners be released on bail on their
           furnishing bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the Trial
           Court, till further orders".
G         8. We have heard learned counsel for ·the parties.
        9. It was stated that the matter has been -compromised between the
  parties, amicable settlement has been arrived at and compounding may
  be allowed. It was further submitted that both the offences for which the
H appellants were convicted are compoundable. Section 320 of the Code
    I


f
             KHURSHEED v. STATE OF U.P. [THAKKER, J.)                      493

        of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') deals A
        with Compounding of Offences. Sub-section (1) of Section 320 of the
        Code reads thus:
               320. Compounding of offences.--(1) The offences punishable
               underthe sections of the Indian Penal Code (45of1860) specified
               in the first two columns of the Table next following may be B
               compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that
               Table:--
               Table ............ .
                                                                                  c
               10. An offence of causing hurt punishable under Section 323 IPC
        falls under sub-section (1) of Section 320 of the Code. It is compoundable
        at the instance of the person to whom the hurt is caused. Permission of
        the Court is not necessary. Since the parties have compounded, the act
        of compounding is in accordance v.rith law.                                D
               11. Sub-section (2) of the said section provides for compounding
        of offences with the permission of the Court. It reads thus:
                   (2) The offences punishable underthe sections of the Indian
               Penal Code (45of1860) specified in the first two columns of the E
               table next following may, with the permission of the Court before
               which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded
               by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table:--
               Table ... ... ... ...   . ..
                                                                                  F
             12. An offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under Section
        325 IPC is covered by sub-section (2) of Section 320 of the Code. It is
        thus clear that an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC is also
        compounded with the permission of the Court.

             13. The parties have compounded the offences. As stated in the G
        compromise deed, Gurfan Ahmad, complainant and his mother Kulsoom
        @ Bhoori. (injured) did not want any action against the appellants
        (accused). The parties are neighbours, their houses are situated adjacent
        to each other and they have been living peacefully for last many years
                                                                                  H
                                                                                \




   494            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A and there is no dispute among them. It is further stated that to continue
   sweet relationship and harmony, complainant side does not want to take
   any action against the accused. A prayer is, therefore; made to accept
   the compromise.
       14. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and considering
B the Deed of Compromise and having heard learned counsel for the parties,
  in our opinion, ~nds of justice would be met if we grant necessary
  pennission for compounding an offence punishable under Section 325 read           ~
  with Section 34 IPC as required by sub-section (2) of Section 320 of
  the Code. The offence punishable under Section 323 IPC has already
C been compounded by the parties.
        15. Sub-section (8) of Section 320 states that the composition of
  offence under the section shall have an effect of acquittal of the accused
  with whom the offence has been compounded. The resultant effect of
D compounding of offences would be that the accused should be acquitted.
  In other words, once the offences have been compounded and the requisite          ~.
  permission is granted by the Court, the accused must be acquitted.
        16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed
E and is accordingly allowed. Compounding of offence is permitted and the
  appellants are ordered to be acquitted.
   RP.                                                    · Appeal allowed.