Khursheed and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: C.K. Thakker
Al Tamas Kabir
Judgment Date: 2007-09-28
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. Compounding of offences is permitted under CrPC 320 with the requisite court permission; 323 had already been compounded; upon grant of permission for compounding 325 read with 34 IPC, the offences are compounded and the accused are acquitted under CrPC 320(8).
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; compounding of offences; accused acquitted.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Khursheed
Islam

Respondents

State of U.P.
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ashok Kumar Sharma

Counsels for Respondents

• T. N. Singh
• Rajeev Dubey
• Kamlendra Misra
• Jatinder Kumar Bhatia
• Vishnu Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

Khursheed and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr. is a Supreme Court decision interpreting the scope of compounding offences under the CrPC and its effect on prior convictions. The appellants were convicted in 1992 for offences under IPC 325 read with 34 and IPC 323 read with 34, with the trial court imposing sentences and the High Court upholding them on revision and appeal. During the proceedings, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement evidenced by a Deed of Compromise, and the matter was adjourned to consider compounding. The Court examined Section 320 of the CrPC, which governs compounding of offences: sub-section (1) permits compounding of offences like section 323 (hurt) at the instance of the person harmed without court permission, whereas sub-section (2) requires the permission of the Court for offences like section 325 (grievous hurt). The Court noted that the offences had been compounded and that the complainant and the injured party did not want to pursue action. It held that ends of justice would be met by granting permission to compound the 325 offence with the 34 IPC as required by sub-section (2) of Section 320 CrPC, given the prior compounding of 323. Sub-section (8) of Section 320 provides that compounding has the effect of acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, compounding was permitted, and the accused were acquitted. The judgment reinforces the preference for settlement where permissible, balancing victim interests, public order, and the interests of the parties in preserving neighborly relations, and ends of justice in the broader sense of peaceful coexistence in the community.

Provisions of Law Cited

CrPC 320(1)CrPC 320(2)CrPC 320(8)IPC 323IPC 325IPC 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ends of justice would be met (principle guiding compounding under CrPC)
Compounding of offences leading to acquittal under CrPC 320(8)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the amicable settlement between the accused and the victim satisfies the ends of justice. Since section 323 IPC offences are punishable but compoundable under CrPC 320(1) without court permission, compounding is permissible. For the more serious section 325 IPC, which is within CrPC 320(2), court permission is required; given the Deed of Compromise and the absence of malice, the court should grant permission for compounding and thus acquit the accused after completion of compounding under section 320(8). The parties emphasize-neighborly relations and the lack of ongoing dispute, asserting that continued prosecution would thwart the settlement and harm communal harmony.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urged that while a compromise was recorded, the Court must ensure legal compliance before allowing compounding. They argued that offences under IPC require court permission for compounding under CrPC 320(2), and the Court should assess the terms of the compromise to ensure the ends of justice are served, preserving public interest in punishing offences and protecting the victims’ rights. They cautioned against rendering the settlement a mere procedural formality absent genuine consent or consideration of the victims’ ongoing rights.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

/ _I_ A # KHURSHEED AND ANR. _v._ STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. # SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 [C.K. THAKKER AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.) B _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 soughtHELD: Offence u/s 323 is compoundable at the instance of victim, permission of Court 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. F ## Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. An offence of causing hurt punishable under Section 323 IPC falls under sub-section (1) of Section 320 of the 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] H 489 \_ 490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R. A 1.2. An offence of causing 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. G Ashok Kumar Sharma for fu,e Appellant~. · 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 A ~- ## C.K. **THAKKER, J.** 1. Leave granted. 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, W aseel 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 ............ . 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. c 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.