1 2025:CGHC:16743 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 352 of 2008 1. Dev Prasad Aged About 44 Years R/o Parsahibana, P. S. Akaltara, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Itwari S/o Petla (deleted as per order dated 06.10.2015) 3. Chetan Prasad (deleted as per order dated 06.10.2015) 4. Bharat Sahu, S/o Chetan Sahu, aged About 22 Years, R/o Parsahibana, P. S. Akaltara, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5. Shivcharan Aged About 30 Years R/o Parsahibana, P. S. Akaltara, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6. Jeevrakhan Aged About 35 Years R/o Parsahibana, P. S. Akaltara, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7. Tantrapal Aged About 28 Years R/o Parsahibana, P. S. Akaltara, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 8. Tameshwar Aged About 44 Years R/o Parsahibana, P. S. Akaltara, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 9. Madan Lal Aged About 28 Years R/o Parsahibana, P. S. Akaltara, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 10. Ghanshyam Aged About 22 Years R/o Parsahibana, P. S. Akaltara, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 2  State Of Chhattisgarh Through – Police Station – Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate. For Res./State : Mr. D.G. Kela, P.L. For Complainant : Mr. Vikram Dixit, Advocate Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 09/04/2025 1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the order dated 27.03.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.180/2007, whereby, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as described below :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 148 of IPC R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for 03 months to each of the appellants Under Section 342 of IPC R.I. for 06 months to each of the appellants. Under Section 323/149 of IPC R.I. for 06 months to each of the appellants. 2. According to the counsel for the accused/applicants, originally complainant Bhulan Bai had filed a written complaint against the present applicants for which offence under Sections 147, 341, 323 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act was registered against them at police station 3 Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa as Crime No.212/2007 and the matter thereafter was put to trial before the Court of Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa. 3. The applicants were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 294, 506, 342 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) (xi) of SC/ST Act and tried for Sections 148, 294, 506 (2), 323/149, 342 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) & 3 (1) (xi) of SC/ST Act. The learned trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, while acquitting the accused/applicants of the charge under Sections 294, 506(2) IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) & 3 (1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, convicted them as described in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants. 4. In pursuance of this Court’s order dated 21.02.2025, appellant Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 appeared before this Court along with their respective counsel. In respect of appellant No.6, it has been submitted by learned counsel that the appellant No.6 left for heavenly abode. 5. It transpires from the record that service report of bailable warrant received with a note that appellant No.6 has died on 27.12.2017 and death certificate has also been annexed with service report. 6. The learned State counsel, on verifying the facts, has 4 confirmed the death of appellant No.6. 7. Thus, in view of the death of appellant No. 6 and in absence of any application for bringing his legal representatives on record, the appeal in respect of appellant No.6 abates and the same is dismissed as abated. 8. Pending the appeal before this Court, the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and have arrived at a settlement. Complainants namely Teerathram, Manoj Kumar and Harishankar, who are legal representative of original complainant namely Bhulan Bai, do not intend to prosecute the accused/applicants any further and, therefore, they had moved an application under Section 320 CrPC before this Court for permission to compound the offence under Sections 148, 342,323/149 of IPC, which is supported by compromise deed duly signed by the appellants and complainant Teerath Ram Satnami. 9. On 09.08.2017 the parties were present before this Court. Pursuant to the Court's order dated 09.08.2017, the statement of complainants namely Teerathram, Manoj Kumar and Harishankar & appellants were recorded. Today i.e. on 09.04.2025, complainants have been represented by duly appointed counsel Mr. Vikram Dixit. An affidavit duly signed by complainant Teerath Ram Satnami is also annexed with the application filed under Section 320 CrPC 5 wherein he has accepted the fact that the dispute between the parties has been compromised and he does not intent to prosecute the case any further. 10. Learned Counsel for the State also on verifying the facts submits that the State does not have any objection in case if the parties are permitted to compound the offence as the disputing parties have entered into a compromise. 11. In view of the categorical statement made by complainants Teerath Ram Satnami, Manoj Kumar and Harishankar and the accused/appellants, this Court is of the opinion that once when the complainants and the accused/appellants have settled their matter and buried the dispute and differences, it would be an important consideration for the Court under Section 320 (2) CrPC to compound the offence. 12. The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh V. State of Punjab & Another [2012 (10) SCC 303] and also in the case of Narinder Singh & Others V. State of Punjab & Another [2014 (6) SCC 466]. 13. Thus, in view of the affidavit submitted by complainant Teerath Ram Satnami and statement of both the parties & keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi & other V. State of Haryana & 6 Another [2003 (4) SCC 675] and in the case of Gian Singh (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra), this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the parties can be permitted to compound the offence. 14. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.03.2008 passed in Special Sessions Trial No.180/2007 by Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa, is set aside and the accused/appellants stand acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 148, 342, 323/149 of IPC. 15. The compromise deed shall form part of this judgment. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Pekde