Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     1181     OF     2012   (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.)NO.4011 OF 2011)

NARESH KUMAR    ...APPELLANT

                VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.      ...RESPONDENTS

O     R     D     E     R   

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties  

to the lis.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment  

and order dated 14.01.2011 passed by the Punjab  

and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal  

No.1245-SB of 2001. By the impugned judgment and  

order the High Court has modified the sentence  

imposed by the Trial Court from three years to 1½  

years.  Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is  

before us in this appeal.

4. During the pendency of this appeal, the  

parties have compounded the offence and an  

appropriate affidavit in this regard is also  

filed in this Court.

5. The conviction and sentence under Section 324  

1

Page 2

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the  

I.P.C.’), as of now, cannot be compounded but the  

incident in the present case took place on  

27.12.1997 and on that date the said offence  

could be compounded.  The issue as to whether the  

conviction and sentence passed under Section 324  

of the I.P.C., prior to the amendment in the year  

2006, could be compounded or not came up for  

consideration of this Court in the case of  

Mohd.Abdul     Sufan     Laskar     and     Others   Vs. State     of    

Assam, (2008) 9 SCC 333. In the said decision,  

this Court has held as under :

“It is no doubt true as stated by the  learned counsel for the appellants even at  the time of preliminary hearing of this  matter that by the Code of Criminal  Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 25 of  2005) the above entry has been deleted.  In  other words, an offence of voluntarily  causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means  punishable under Section 324 IPC is no more  compoundable.  The Amendment Act of 2005  came into force from 23.06.2006.

As we have already noted, according to the  prosecution, the appellants had committed  the offence on 15.06.1995.  In view of the  above fact, in our opinion, Act 25 of 2005  has no application to the facts of the case.  We, therefore, see no ground to refuse  permission as sought by the parties who have  compromised the offence which was  compoundable under the Code as it stood in  1995. If it is so, compounding can be  permitted and the accused (the appellant)  can be acquitted.

2

Page 3

For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion,  the appeal deserves to be allowed and is  accordingly allowed by holding that since  the matter has been compounded by compromise  between the parties and there is no  illegality therein, such compounding can be  permitted by the Court...    

Ordered accordingly.”

6. In view of the above, since the offence had  

taken place on 27.12.1997, i.e. prior to the  

amendment, and in view of the fact that the  

complainant and the accused intends to compound  

the offence, we grant the request made in the  

said application for compounding of offence.  

Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by  

the Trial Court as modified by the High Court and  

allow the appeal.

7. In the result, the accused is acquitted from  

the charges alleged against him.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

NEW DELHI;

3

Page 4

AUGUST 06, 2012   

4