MOHD SHAFI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of this petition, which is purported to have been made under section 345 read with section 561 -A Cr. P.C., compounding of offence under sections 497 read with section 109 RPC, is sought. Presently, there is no lis pending in this court as the revision petition in question was decided on 20.11.96. Here, the convictions and the sentences awarded by the Trial Court were confirmed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was directed to advance the arguments regarding the maintainabilty of this petition but he has failed to enter appearance. In his absence, Mr. Shukia GA has advanced arguments and pleaded that no doubt an offence under section 497 is compundable by the husband of the woman under, the provisions of section 345 Cr. P. C. yet this compromise can be affected only during the course of the proceedings and when the court is in session of the matter but when the convictions and the sentences have become final the court has no jurisdiction to grant compromise in the matter. In support of his contentions. Mr. S.K.Shukla, GA has cited the cases of -Golak Chandra Nayak and another vs. state of Orissa and others (1993 criminal Law Journal 404) and 1990 supplement SC cases 63). In the case of 1993 Criminal Law Journal 274 (supra),it has been held that the High Court cannot in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 (herein 561 -A) direct compounding of offence not permissible under section 320 (herein 345).

(2.) IN the case of 1993 Criminal Law Journal 404 (supra), the accused was convicted for an offence under section 420 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Conviction and sentence became final in revision. It was held that as the High court was not in session of the matter, so could not permit the compounding of the offence at this stage. The compounding of the offence at that stage, was deemed to have the effect of acquiting the accused. In the case of 1990 Supplement SC 63, the apex court has held that the High Court was right in not granting the permission to compound the offence, as it had already disposed of the matter.

(3.) IN view of the legal position stated above, this petition has no legal force in it, which is accordingly dismissed.