Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice : SC

Appellants abused and assaulted Padam Singh (Complainant) on account of certain monetary dispute. Appellants were committed for trial under Sections 294, 323 and 326 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC') and Section 3 of Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989. The Appellants assailed their conviction before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah. Learned Sessions Judge took notice of the settlement between parties and compounded the offences under Sections 294 and 323 read with 34 IPC, acquitting them of the same. The High Court, even so, further reduced the duration of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the Appellant. Alternatively, they sought compounding of offence under Section 326 IPC in light of the compromise. However, such a prayer was not acceded to by the High Court of Madhya Pardesh since the offence is 'non­compoundable' within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Same version taken by Karnatka High Court in another case. Short question of law involved in both these appeals is whether `non­compoundable’ offences can be `compounded’ by a Court or in the alternative, whether the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could quash non­compoundable offences, based on a compromise/settlement arrived at between the accused and the victim­complainant, and if so, under what circumstances. Apex Court held in non­heinous offences or where the offences are pre­dominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction.  Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice .

D.D-29.09.2021 

Ramgopal & Anr. VERSUS  The State of Madhya Pradesh