# Rajpal and another v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2005) 3 ILRA 996
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-10-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.14442 of 2005
- **Bench:** Mrs. Poonam Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajpal-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40530
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure
S-482Compromise Application-offence under
section
307/506.IPC-if
prosecution
version accepted maximum conviction
under 324 IPC can be given-which is a
compoundable
offence-concerned
session
Judge
directed
to
grant
permission
and
to
accept
the
compromise.

Held-Para-6

In view of various decisions, I find that
especially in the facts of the present
case, injuries are not such which could
constitute offences under Section 307
I.P.C. In the circumstances, if the
prosecution version is accepted, the
conviction would end only one under
Section
324
I.P.C.,
which
is
compoundable with the permission of
the court. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, I
dispose
of
this
application
with
a
direction to the concerned court to grant
permission and accept the compromise
in Sessions Trial No. 1105 of 1999 State
vs. Rajpal and another (supra), and pass
a fresh order in confirmation of the
guidelines
given
above.
3 All] Rajpal and another V. State of U.P. and another
997
Case law discussed:
1999 G.L.J. 3417
AIR 1988 SC-2111

## Text

996 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
16. In such a way, I find that action
of the respondents is illegal and the order
dated 10.10.1991 cannot be sustained in
eye of law. As the order dated 10.10.1991
(Annexure 19 to the writ petition) has
been set aside, the petitioner is entitled for
regularization on the post of Khandsair
Inspector at least immediately on the day
when his immediate junior to the
petitioner mentioned at Serial No. 19 of
the list dated 5th February, 1975 has been
regularized. It is also to be noted that this
Court vide order dated 28.10.1991 was
pleased
to
stay
the
order
dated
10.10.1991. The petitioner is working on
the basis of the interim order on the post
of Khandsair Inspector.

17. As the order dated 10.101991
has been quashed, the respondent No.2 is
directed
to
pass
appropriate
orders
regarding regularization of the petition on
the post of Khandsair Inspector form 31st
December, 1987 when the junior persons
of he petitioner have been regularized by
the Selection Committee. It is also made
clear that the petitioner swill be entitled
for all the consequential promotional
benefits for which the petitioner is entitled
according to law.

18. The writ petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.

Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.10.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.14442 of
2005

Rajpal and another

...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & another...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Raghuraj Kishore.

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure
S-482Compromise Application-offence under
section
307/506.IPC-if
prosecution
version accepted maximum conviction
under 324 IPC can be given-which is a
compoundable
offence-concerned
session
Judge
directed
to
grant
permission
and
to
accept
the
compromise.

Held-Para-6

In view of various decisions, I find that
especially in the facts of the present
case, injuries are not such which could
constitute offences under Section 307
I.P.C. In the circumstances, if the
prosecution version is accepted, the
conviction would end only one under
Section
324
I.P.C.,
which
is
compoundable with the permission of
the court. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, I
dispose
of
this
application
with
a
direction to the concerned court to grant
permission and accept the compromise
in Sessions Trial No. 1105 of 1999 State
vs. Rajpal and another (supra), and pass
a fresh order in confirmation of the
guidelines
given
above.
3 All] Rajpal and another V. State of U.P. and another
997
Case law discussed:
1999 G.L.J. 3417
AIR 1988 SC-2111

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Raghuraj Kishore,
counsel for the applicants and learned
A.G.A.

2. The submission on behalf of the
applicants is that Sessions Trial No. 1105
of 1999 State Vs. Rajpal and another
under Sections 307, 506 I.P.C., Police
Station Gangoh, Saharanpur, is pending
and the compromise submitted in the
same, may be accepted.

3. The facts giving rise to the
dispute is that on 3rd May, 1999, at 6:30
PM, the applicant's caught hold on the
victim Sukrampal and caused injuries
with knife. A first information report was
registered on 4.5.1999 at 4:30 PM. The
victim was medically examined; the
doctor did not give any opinion with
regard to the injury report has been
annexed as annexure no. 2 to the affidavit
filed in support of this application. There
were two injuries on the body of the
victim. According to the opinion of the
doctor, one injury was found to be simple
in nature and another was kept under
observation. Subsequently, no X-Ray was
performed as there was no supplementary
injury report on record. After completion
of investigation, the police submitted a
charge sheet under Section 307 I.P.C. A
compromise was entered into between the
victim and the accused on 22.8.2005 and
the same was filed in the court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3,
Saharanpur in Sessions Trial No. 1105 of
1999 State Vs. Rajpal and another, with
the specific prayer that they did not want
to
continue
the
proceedings
and,
therefore, in view of the compromise, the
proceedings
may
be
dropped.
The
application was rejected by means of
impugned order on the ground that section
307 I.P.C. is not compoundable hence the
compromise cannot be accepted.

4. It is submitted that the injuries
were not such which could either be
dangerous to life or was likely to cause
death. There is no opinion of the doctor
on the injury report which is annexure no.
2 In any event, if there would have been
no compromise and trial would have
concluded into an order of conviction; it
could not travel beyond the preview of
Section
324
I.P.C.
which
is
compoundable. Reliance has been placed
on the decision in the case Gopal Tiwari
and another Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 1999 CRI. L.J. 3417, paras 4
and 5 of the said decision are quoted
below.

"4 Keeping in view the size of the
injury; the part of the body on which it
was inflected it was not vital part, it did
not damaged the heart or the lung, there
was no repeated attack and in the absence
of clear motive, it should be inferred that
accused Gopal Tiwari had no intention or
knowledge to cause death of Mukesh. The
offence is not covered by Section 307 but
it comes with in the purview of Section
324, I.P.C. The charge under Section 324
I.P.C. is brought home to accused Gopal
Tiwari and Under Section 324/34 to
accused Ramesh Tiwari.

Where in appeal conviction for noncompoundable offence is altered to that
of a compoundable offence permission to
compound can be granted. Ram Shankar
998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
Vs. State of U.P. (1982) 3 SCC 388. The
offence under Section 324, I.P.C. is
compoundable with the permission of the
Court. Considering the facts mentioned
in para 2 of this judgment and the
affidavit of the complainant to the effect
that the parties have amicably settled the
matter the permission to compound the
offence is granted. It would be in the
mutual interest of the complainant and
the appellants and also in the interest of
the society that key should forget the past
and live peacefully as good and lawabiding citizens. That would remove the
bitterness and rancor between them. It
has
been
observed
in
Shakuntala
Sawhney
vs.
Kaushalaya
Sawhney
(1980) 1 SCC 63, that finest hour of the
justice is the hour of compromise when
parties after burying the hatchet reunited
by a reasonable and just compromise.
The complainant and the accused are
granted permission to compromise the
offence. It is expressed that they have
compounded the offence."

5. Section 320 Cr.P.C. is relevant
provision,
which
permits
the
compounding of the offences. However,
Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted
permission to compound the offences
which are non-compoundable under the
Code vide Devender V. State of M.P.
1994 SCC (Cri.0 145, Union Carbide
Vs. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 584:
Mahesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan
AIR 1988 SC 2111.

6. In view of various decisions, I
find that especially in the facts of the
present case, injuries are not such which
could constitute offences under Section
307 I.P.C. In the circumstances, if the
prosecution version is accepted, the
conviction would end only one under
Section
324
I.P.C.,
which
is
compoundable with the permission of the
court.
In
view
of
the
facts
and
circumstances of the present case, I
dispose of this application with a direction
to the concerned court to grant permission
and accept the compromise in Sessions
Trial No. 1105 of 1999 State vs. Rajpal
and another (supra), and pass a fresh order
in confirmation of the guidelines given
above.

 Application Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICATION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2005.

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52316 of 2005

Ramesh Chandra Nagar and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.P. Singh
Sri Gautam Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anurag Khanna
Sri U.S. Awashthi
S.C.

Contract Labour and Abolition Act-S-10regularisation-petitioner
working
as
driver
with
Noida
Development
Authority-Principal
employee
of
the
petitioner is the licensed contractorchallenge made to advertisement of
fresh vacancy-and the regularization on
preferential
basis-held
absence
of
vacancy claim for regularization held
wholly fallacious-before regularization
they hare to first establish their statesbeing selected on merit alongwith otherand their performance is equal but not