Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.509  OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.371 of 2014]

Bharti ...Appellant

Vs.

State of Haryana  & Anr. …Respondents

O  R  D  E  R

1. Leave granted.

2. The  appellant  was  convicted  by  the  Sessions  Judge,  

Faridabad in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2001 for an offence  

punishable under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).  

He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one  

year  and  a  fine  of  Rs.  500/-,  in  default,  to  suffer  further  

rigorous  imprisonment  for  a  period  of  two  months.   The  

appellant  was also convicted under Section 354 of the IPC  

and  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  one  

year  and  a  fine  of  Rs.  500/-,  in  default,  to  further  suffer  

rigorous  imprisonment  for  two  months.   The  substantive  

1

Page 2

sentences  were  ordered  to  run  concurrently.   Being  

aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant preferred an  

appeal  to the Punjab and Haryana High Court which came to  

be dismissed and, hence, this appeal.  

3. During  the  hearing  of  this  appeal,  this  Court  was  

informed  that  the  appellant  and  the  complainant  Smt.  

Mukesh w/o Shri  Rakesh have entered into a compromise.  

The  appellant  filed  an  application  for  impleadment  of  

complainant  Smt.  Mukesh  w/o  Shri  Rakesh.  On  27/1/2014  

this Court permitted impleadment.  Thus,  the complainant  

Smt.  Mukesh w/o  Shri  Rakesh  is  respondent  No.  2  in  the  

present appeal.  Affidavit  dated 3/10/2013 has been filed by  

the  complainant  stating  that   with  the  intervention  of  

respectable persons of the village and relatives from both  

sides, the matter has been compromised between her and  

the appellant and now there is no dispute between them, at  

all.   It  is  further  stated  that  respondent  No.  2  and  the  

appellant are neighbours and are living peacefully and no  

untoward incident has taken place since 2000.  It is further  

2

Page 3

stated that respondent No. 2 will have no objection if the FIR  

lodged by her and all the consequential proceedings arising  

out of the said FIR including the judgments rendered by the  

courts  below  against  the  appellant,  are  set  aside.  

Respondent No. 2 has further stated that she is filing this  

affidavit without any pressure or coercion. Learned counsel  

for the appellant and respondent No. 2 have confirmed that  

the parties have entered into a compromise.  

4. In  the  year  2000  when  the  offence  was  committed,  

Section  451  of  the  IPC  was  compoundable  with  the  

permission of the Court by the person in possession of the  

house trespassed upon.  At that time Section 354 of the IPC  

was also compoundable with the permission of the Court by  

the woman assaulted to whom the criminal force was used.  

By the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008  

(5  of  2009),  Section  354  of  the  IPC  was  made  non-

compoundable. The question is, therefore, whether in view  

of the compromise this Court should permit compounding of  

the offence.  

3

Page 4

5. We notice from the judgment of the Sessions Court that  

in the Sessions Court affidavits were filed by respondent No.  

2 and her husband stating that the matter was settled.  The  

Sessions Court did not accept those affidavits and proceeded  

to  convict  the  appellant.   The  High  Court  confirmed  the  

conviction.   

6. We are mindful of the fact that Section 354 of the IPC  

is, as of today, non-compoundable.  But, as noticed by us, it  

was compoundable when the instant offence was committed  

with the permission of the court.  Even then, we would have  

hesitated to permit compounding of the offence.  But, facts  

of  this  case are very peculiar.   Respondent  No.2 and her  

husband have, even today, maintained their stand taken in  

the  trial  court  that  they  have entered into  a  compromise  

with the appellant.  As we have already noted, respondent  

No.2  has  filed  an  affidavit  to  that  effect  in  this  Court.  

Compromise is, therefore, not an afterthought.  Pertinently,  

the incident in  question  took-place way back in  the year  

2000.  About 13 long years have gone-by. In her affidavit  

4

Page 5

respondent  No.  2  has  stated  that  the  appellant  is  her  

neighbour  and they  are  staying  peacefully  since  2000 till  

date.  We are of the opinion that since the appellant and  

respondent No. 2 are neighbours it would be in the interest  

of justice to permit the parties to compound the offences.  If  

the conviction is confirmed, the relations may get strained  

and  the  peace,  which  is  now prevailing  between  the  two  

families, may be disturbed. In the peculiar facts of this case,  

therefore, in order to accord quietus to the disputes between  

the appellant and respondent No. 2 and in the larger interest  

of peace, we permit the appellant and respondent No. 2 to  

compound  the  offences.   Accordingly,  offences  under  

Sections  451  and  354  of  the  IPC  are  permitted  to  be  

compounded.   The impugned judgment  is  set  aside.   The  

appellant  is  acquitted.  The appellant-Bharti  is  in  jail.   The  

appellant-Bharti  should be released forthwith,  unless he is  

required in any other case.   

7. The appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.  

….…………………………………….J. (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

5

Page 6

………………………………………..J. (MADAN B. LOKUR)

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 27, 2014.

6