Partly allowed

Kamta Prasad Navendra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Apr 2021CRMP/349/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Chhattisgarh examined whether offences under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are compoundable under Section 320 of the CrPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that such offences are non-compoundable. It affirmed the Special Judge's refusal to allow compounding and dismissed the petition, leaving open the p

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed on the issue of compounding, affirming the order refusing to compound the offence. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the revisional court regarding the order fram

Kamta Prasad Navendra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Cr.M.P.No.349 of 2021

¶5

Kamta Prasad Navendra, aged about 53 years, S/o Late
Tejram Navendra, R/o Puri, Thana Charama, Distt.
Uttar Baster Kanker (CG)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Charama, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker (CG)

¶9

2. Pemin Bai, aged about 48 years, W/o Kailashnath Bhuarya, By Caste Halba, Distt.Uttar Baster Kanker (CG)

¶10

----Respondents
For Petitioner :Mr.Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For Respondent No.1:Mr.Jitendra Pali, Dy.A.G.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

9.4.2021

¶14

1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

¶15

2. Heard on admission and I.A. No. 1, application for grant of stay.

¶16

3. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter called as 'the Act of 1989'). During pendency of charge-sheet, the petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant filed an application under

¶17

¶18

Section 320(2) read with Section 320(8) of the CrPC to
compound the offences. Learned Special Judge
(Atrocities), Uttar Bastar Kanker by order dated
18.1.2021 only permitted the petitioner to compound
the offence under Section 406 of the IPC and on
19.1.2021 learned Special Judge framed the charges for
offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC
and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989, which has been
called in question by the petitioner in this writ
petition.

¶19

4. Mr.Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the parties have settled their dispute on the basis of compromise and therefore, the matter ought to have closed by learned Special Judge.

¶20

5. Mr.Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General for
respondent No.1/State, would submit that there is no
provisions for compounding the offence under Section
3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 and it has rightly been not
compounded by learned Special Judge and furthermore,
order framing charge dated 19.1.2021 is revisiable and
therefore, against that part of order, the petition
under Section 482 of the CrPC would not be
maintainable.

¶21

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove

¶22

¶23

and also went through the records with utmost
circumspection.

¶24

7. Chapter XXIV of the Code includes Section 320 of the
Code which provides compounding of offence, thus,
compounding of an offence is statutorily provided
under Section 320 of the Code.

¶25

8. A close and careful reading of Section 320 of the
Code, it would appear that there are two categories of
the offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code
which have been made compoundable; first category of
the offence as provided under Section 320(1) of the
Code, the leave of the Court for compounding of
offences is not required, whereas offence as provided
Section 320(2) of the Code, leave of the Court is
required for compounding of offence. But in both the
categories of offences, compounding of offence can
take place at the instance of persons mentioned in the
Third Column of the table. According to the 3rd column
of the table, compounding can only be possible at the
instance of the person who is either a complainant or
who has been injured or is aggrieved.

¶26

9. Sub-sections (4)(a) and (4)(b) of Section 320 of the
Code also reiterate the same principle that in case of
compounding, the person competent to compound, must be
represented in a manner known to law.

¶27

¶28

10.Sub-Section (9) of Section 320 which is relevant

¶29

in this connection is set out below:

¶30

“No offence shall be compounded except as
provided by this Section.”

¶31

11. The aforesaid provision came-up for consideration

¶32

before the Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Lal and
another v. State of Jammu & Kashmir1, in which, their
Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that sub-
Section (9) of Section 320 of the Code imposes a
legislative ban on compounding except as provided in
this provision.

¶33

12. The above-stated proposition of law has been
reiterated and followed by their Lordships of the
Supreme Court in the matter of Surendra Nath Mohanty
and another v. State of Orissa2 and held that by
virtue of legislative mandate contained in Section 320
(9) of the Code, only offence which are covered by
table 1 or 2 as stated above can be compounded and the
rest of the offences punishable under Indian Penal
Code can not be compounded. Para 5 of the report
states as under:-

¶34

“5. In our view, submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent requires to be
accepted. For compounding of the offences
punishable under the Indian Penal Code,
complete scheme is provided under Section 320
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sub

¶35

1 (1999) 2 SCC 213

¶36

2 (1999) 5 SCC 238

¶37

¶38

Section (1) of Section 320 provides that the
offences mentioned in the table provided
thereunder can be compounded by the persons
mentioned in Column No. 3 of the said table.
Further, sub-section (2) provides that, the
offences mentioned in the table could be
compounded by the victim with the permission of
the Court. As against this, sub-section (9)
specifically provides that “no offence shall be
compounded except as provided by this Section”.
In view of the aforesaid legislative mandate,
only the offences which are covered by table 1
or 2 as stated above can be compounded and the
rest of the offences punishable under Indian
Penal Code could not be compounded.”

¶39

13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bankat and
another v. State of Maharashtra3 reiterated and
followed the principles laid down in case of Ram Lal
(supra) & Surendra Nath Mohanty(supra) by holding
that sub-Section (9) of Section 320 specifically
provides that “no offence shall be compounded
Section”. In view of the aforesaid legislative
mandate, only the offences which are covered by Table
1 to Table 2 provided under Section 320 can be
compounded and the rest of the offences punishable
under IPC cannot be compounded.

¶40

14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab and another4 has clearly held that
compounding of offences by the Criminal Court has to
be in accord with Section 320 of the Code and in no
other manner. Para 51 of the Code states as under:-

¶41

3 (2005) 1 SCC 343

¶42

4 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶43

¶44

“51. Section 320 of the Code articulates public
policy compounding of with regard offences. It
to the catalogues the offences punishable under
IPC which may be compounded by the parties
without permission of the court and the
composition of certain offences with the
permission of the court. The offences
punishable under the special statutes are not
covered by Section 320, abatement of such
offence or an attempt to commit such offence or
where the accused is liable under Section 34 or
149 IPC can also be compounded in the same
manner. A person who is under 18 years of age
or is an idiot or a lunatic is not competent to
contract compounding of offence but the same
can be done on his behalf with the permission
of the court. If a person is otherwise
competent offence is to dead, representatives
may also compound his an legal compound the
offence with the permission of the Court. Where
the accused has been committed for trial or he
has been convicted and the appeal is pending,
composition can only be done with the leave of
the court to which he has been committed or
with the leave of the appeal court, as the case
may be. The Revisional Court is also competent
to allow any person to compound any offence who
is competent to compound. The consequence of
the composition of an offence is acquittal of
the accused. Sub-section (9) of Section 320
mandates that no offence shall be compounded
except as provided by this Section. Obviously,
in view thereof the composition of an offence
has to be in accord with Section 320 and in no
other manner.”

¶45

15.The Supreme Court in the matter of Mukesh Kumar and

¶46

others v. State of Rajasthan5 following the decision
of Ram Lal(supra), their Lordships of Supreme Court
have clearly reiterated that an offence can be
compounded only if it is compoundable except as
provided by Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

¶47

5 (2013) 11 SCC 511

¶48

¶49

16. InYogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand6, their

¶50

Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under:-

¶51

“4. Now, the question before this Court is
whether this Court can compound the offences
under Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal
Code which are non-compoundable. Needless to
say that offences, which are non compoundable
cannot be compounded by the court. Courts draw
the power of compounding offences from Section
320 of the Code. The said provision has to be
strictly followed. (Gian Singh Case Vs. State
of Punjab).

¶52

17. The Constitution Bench, which decided A.R.Antulay

¶53

v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another7, has clearly
held that, Code of Criminal Procedure is parent
statute which provides for investigation, inquiring
into and trial of cases by criminal courts of various
designations and in the absence of a specific
provision made in the statute indicating that offences
will have to be investigated, inquired into, tried and
otherwise dealt with according to the Code of Criminal
Procedure.

¶54

18. Thus, it is well settled that for compounding the
offences, the Criminal Court has to strictly follow
the mandate of Section 320 of the Code and an offence
can be compounded only if it is compoundable, duly
provided by Section 320 of the Code.

¶55

19. What falls for consideration is as to what should

¶56

6 2014 (8) Scale 634

¶57

7 (1984) 2 SCC 500

¶58

¶59

be the position in respect of offence punishable under
the Act of 1989 ?

¶60

20. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the CrPC provides
that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be
investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise
dealt with according to the provisions contained in
the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶61

21. Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the CrPC provided
that all offences under any other law shall be
investigated into, tried, and dealt with according to
the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for
the time being in force regulating the manner or place
of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise
dealing with such offences.

¶62

22. Thus, sub-Section (1) of Section 4 deals with
offences under the Indian Penal Code whereas sub-
section (2) of the Section 4 deals with offences under
any other law which would obviously include offence
under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
and the compounding of offence could be brought into
the category of otherwise dealing with the offences as
provided in sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the Code.

¶63

23. Thus, under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the
Code, compounding of offence under any other law or

¶64

¶65

enactment other than Indian Penal Code should be dealt
with in the manner indicated in the said law or
enactment, notwithstanding the embargo in sub-section
(9) of Section 320 of the Code.

¶66

24. A Brief survey of the provisions of the Act of
1989 would show that there is no express provision in
Act of 1989 either permitting or prohibiting
compounding of the offences under the Act of 1989.

¶67

25. Now the question is whether the offence under the
Act of 1989 can be permitted to be compounded in
absence of any express provision in the Act of 1989.

¶68

26. InBiswabahan Das vs. Gopen Chandra Hazarika &
others8, their Lordships of Supreme Court have held
that for composition of an offence, express provision
of law is necessary. The following paragraphs of the
said report are relevant:-

¶69

“10.From the above it was sought to be argued
that if the wrong done was of a very trivial
nature the rendering of compensation was in the
eye of the law sufficient to redress it and to
put an end to the matter without any reflection
on the character of the person charged with
having done the wrong.

¶70

11. We are unable to accept the above
reasoning, if a person is charged with an
offence, then unless there is some provision
for composition of it the law must take its
course and the charge enquired into resulting
either in conviction or acquittal. If
composition of an offence was permissible under
the law the effect of such composition would

¶71

8 AIR 1967 SC 895

¶72

¶73

depend on what the law provided for. If the
effect of composition is to amount to an
acquittal then it may be said that no stigma
should attach to the character of the person,
but unless that is expressly provided for, the
mere rendering of compensation would not amount
to the vindication of the character of the
person charged with the offence.”

¶74

27. In Gian Singh(supra), it has been held by the
Supreme Court that offences punishable under the
special statutes like prevention of Corruption Act are
not covered by Section 320 of the Code.

¶75

28. Accordingly, offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the
Act of 1989 cannot be permitted to be compounded as
there is no legislative provision either in Code or
Act of 1989 for compounding the said offence, as such,
I do not find any illegality in order dated 18.1.2021
and accordingly it is affirmed.

¶76

29. So far as order framing charge for the above-
stated offences against the petitioner is concerned,
it has rightly been pointed out by learned State
Counsel that the order is revisable. The petitioner is
at liberty to question the order framing charge before
the revisional Court in accordance with law.

¶77

30. In view of above, the present petition under
Section 482 of the CrPC is dismissed reserving the
aforesaid liberty in favour of the petitioner to
question the order framing charge in accordance with

¶78

¶79

law. However, it is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

 (Sanjay K.Agrawal)
 Judge

¶82

B/-

Kamta Prasad Navendra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamta Prasad Navendra v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vallurpulli Rajkumar Vs R. R. Industrial Corporation India Limited

Sankalp Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Kumar Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhirendra Singh Parihar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bachhraj Gond @ Bachchhraj Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradip Bagh Vs State of Chhattisgarh