1 2025:CGHC:21808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 509 of 2020 Dilesh Kumar Sahu S/o Sukdhan Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Gorratola, Police Station Ambagarh Chauki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattis- garh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Am- bagarh Chauki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 09.05.2025 1) This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and order of sentence of conviction dated 19.03.2020 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Court of Special Judge Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh in 2 Special Criminal Case No. 18/2018 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code One year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of pay- ment of fine amount additional rigor- ous imprisonment for 05 days. Under Section 354 (A) (IV) of Indian Penal Code Six months Rigorous Imprisonment. Under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code Rs. 500/- fine and in default of pay- ment of fine amount simple imprison- ment for 05 days. Under Section 3(2)(V- A) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atroci- ties) Act, 1989 One year of Rigorous Imprisonment and fine amount of Rs. 1000/- All the sentences will run concurrently, if the fine amount will not be paid by the ap- pellant then all the sentences will run one by one. 2) The case in nutshell is that on 07.06.2018 the complainant made a complaint stating that on 06.06.2018 at about 7:30 AM when she was going for labor work for digging pond as per the scheme of Manrega and waiting for others along with with her friend Bhuaary near the house of Jagat Ram, the present appellant came near her and proposed her by 3 holding her hand. When she refused his proposal, he used abusive language and slapped her near her neck and ear. 3) On the basis of above, written complaint was lodged against the appellant in Police Station Ambagarh Chawki for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the concerned Court. 4) Appellant abjured his guilt and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 5) In order to prove the prosecution story, prosecutrix examined as many as 13 witnesses. 6) After completion of trial, learned Judge after duly appreciating the evidence available on record convicted the appellant and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 7) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that settlement have been reached between the parties, the complainant does not want to continue with the criminal proceedings against the appelalnt. Since, the parties have decided to dispose of their dispute amicably and without any undue 4 coercion and fear of pressure , hence it is prayed to quash the entire proceeding against the appellant. 8) On the other hand learned counsel for the State/respondent also supported the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and stated that the parties have reached to the settlement of the dispute and does not want to proceed further in this matter. 9) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 10) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties. On perusal of the records, I have found that parties have fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the settlement deed. In view of the categorical statements made by the parties, this Court is of the opinion that once when the complainant and the appellant have settled their matter, it would be an important consideration for the High Court, to quash the proceedings against the appellant. 11) The opinion of this Court stands fortified from the judgment 5 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another [2012(10) SCC 303] and in the case of B.S. Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another [2003(4) SCC 675] in which the Court dealt with the quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties, wherein the court observed that: 57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceedings or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequences may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 59. B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do illustrate the principle that High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji, this Court has compounded the non-compounded offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different 6 although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz. Acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment. 61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (I) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. 12) Another aspect which has to be borne in mind is that since the parties to the dispute having entered into a settlement and in this regard compromise application has already been filed before the Court. Therefore, it would not be justified to drag these proceedings unnecessarily. 13) In view of the statement made the complainant and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi And Others Vs. State of Haryana And An- other [2003 (4) SCC 675] and in the case of Gian Singh (supra), this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case where the parties can be permitted to compound the offence and they are permit- ted to do so. 14) Consequently, the criminal proceedings against the 7 present appellant for the conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh in Special Criminal Case No. 18/2018 dated 19.03.2020 stands quashed. 15) The present criminal appeal thus stands allowed. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) alfiza Judge