1 2025:CGHC:20027 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1495 of 2025 1 - Kaushal Yadav S/o Manoj Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Doganiya, Post Kachnari, Tahsil And Police Station Birsa, District Balaghat Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kumhari, Bhilai-3, District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - Srishti Dubey D/o Late Shailendra Dubey Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Kandarka, Thana Kumhari, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 01/05/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The present Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg in Criminal Appeal No. 98/2025, whereby an application filed by the petitioner 2 under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 359(2) of B.N.S.S. 2023 has been rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in Criminal Case No. 329/2022 which was decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai-III, District Durg vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2025, he was convicted for the offence under Section 456 and 354 of IPC and sentenced for RI for 01 year with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment for 01 month and RI for 01 year with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment of 01 year respectively. 4. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court has been challenged by the petitioner by filing the Criminal Appeal No. 98/2025 before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner has filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 359(2) of BNSS, 2023 for permission to compound the offence on 18.03.2025. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties rejected the application on the same day holding that the offence of Section 354 and Section 456 is not compoundable and has rejected the application which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant and the petitioner have entered into the compromise and even if the offences are not compoundable, in the interest of justice, the same may be allowed by the learned appellate Court as well as by this Court. The dispute between the parties have been amicably settled and now the complainant does not want to prosecute her complaint further and there is no chance of his ultimate conviction in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. He would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others reported in 2019(5) SCC 688. 3 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have supported the impugned order. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. True, it is that the offences which are not mentioned in the table given under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. or 359 of BNSS, 2023, but there are certain restrictions if the offences are public in nature or does affect the society at large. In the judgment of Laxmi Narayan (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in para 15 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: 15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under: 15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of and character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; 15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; 15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; 15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake 4 of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh² should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove; 15.5*. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise, etc." 9. To consider the nature of offence, when this Court examine the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court it appears that the allegation against the present petitioner is that on 03.03.2022 in the night at about 11:30 p.m. he knocked the door of the house of the victim when she asked about the person who was knocking the door, he replied that he is her teacher and came there to taught the answer which might have come in the examination. The victim is the student of the petitioner and on that pretext when she opened the door, the petitioner forcefully entered into her room and outrage her modesty by pressing her breast and when she shouted for help, the petitioner fled away, it is not a simple act of outraging the modesty but under the relation of teacher and student, he committed the offence which definitely does not comes under the offence of private nature and it does affect the society at large. 10. From perusal of the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court dated 28.01.2025 it reflects that the appellant has been convicted for the offence 5 under Section 354 and 458 of IPC and Section 354 of IPC is defined the outraging the modesty of the victim which definitely not an offence of private nature but does affect the society at large. The impact of the offence does affect the society and cannot be quashed/compounded in exercise of powers under Section 528 of BNSS on the ground that the parties have resolved the dispute among themselves. 11. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Second Additional Judge, Durg to interfere and to grant relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 12. Accordingly, the petition liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.05.05 19:59:56 +0530