JANGALIA Vs. GAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed because of the bar of Section 102, Code of Civil Procedure Code. In short, the case is that one Badle had filed a complaint against the present Plaintiffs. During the pendency of this criminal suit, the parties came to a compromise, according to which accused (present Plaintiffs) were to give ornaments and a sum of Rs. 450 to the Panchas for the purpose of giving them over to Badle. This sum of Rs. 450 was given to Jangalia and Faturi (the Panchas) who are Defendants in this ease. In spite of this settlement, the criminal proceedings continued and were eventually dismissed for other reasons. Thereafter, the present Plaintiffs (who were accused in the criminal case) filed a suit for the recovery of the ornaments and also for the money. Five Panchas were impleaded as Defendants. The trial Court found that only two Panchas Jangalia and Faturi received the amount and that the other Panchas did not get the money. When Jangalia and Faturi were noticed, prior to the institution of the suit, they admitted having received the money, but said that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to get it back. Badle has been examined in this case and he said that he had received the ornaments and not the money. In these circumstances the trial Court decreed the suit against Jangalia and Faturi for the return of money only. In an appeal by Jangalia and Faturi, a new plea was taken to the effect that the agreement between the parties to compound the offence amounted to the stifling of the prosecution and therefore it was hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act. The first appellate Court overruled the objection and confirmed the decision of the trial Court. Jangalia and Faturi have now filed this revision.

(2.) MR . Swami Saran, Learned Counsel for the applicants, urges that an agreement to stifle the prosecution is against public policy and is therefore hit by section 23 of the Contract Act.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has referred me to Bhowanipur Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Shreemati Durgesh Nandini Dassi AIR l94l PC 95., but I am afraid that the Privy Council case has no bearing on this case, because the prosecution in that case was for an offence which was not compoundable.