# Revisionist v. State of U.P. & others - **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 100 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2006-08-08 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3974 of 2006 - **Bench:** Shiv Shanker - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-others-40726 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure-Compromise Application-revisionist/Applicant facing Trail for offence under Section 407 I.P.C.-rejection by Session Judge-heldproper-offence being non - compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C.-can not be settled on the basis of compromise. Held: Para 10 & 11 Therefore, the trial court could not consider the offences to be compoundable, which are not mentioned under section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In these circumstances, this criminal revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, this revision is hereby dismissed. Case law discussed: ACC-200 Page-372 1999 ACC-372 1999 ACC (Vol. 38)-367 ## Text 100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007 14. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the revisionists. 15. So far as the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Michael Machado and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, AIR 2000 S.C., 1127 is concerned, 54 witnesses had been examined including their crossexamination. Therefore, it was held that the de novo trial is not proper. In the present case, statement of PW-1 is only recorded. 16. The pronouncement in Mahesh Chandra Misra and others Vs. State of UP and others, 1999 Crl. L.J. 315 is also not applicable in the present case as there is direct evidence against the revisionists and main role has been assigned to him in the alleged occurrence. 17. Similar view has also been taken in Ganga Prasad Mishra Vs. State of UP and another 2005 (51) ACC 406. 18. In view of discussions made above, I come to the conclusion that the learned court below has not committed any error of law, illegality or incorrectness in allowing the application under section 319, Cr.P.C. against the revisionist and it is not liable to be interfered with. 19. Thus, this revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed hence dismissed. The impugned order passed by the court below is hereby affirmed. Revision Dismissed. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.08.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHIV SHANKER, J. Criminal Revision No. 3974 of 2006 Balveer Prasad ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & others...Opposite parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri S.C. Tiwari Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Sri S.C. Pandey A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-Compromise Application-revisionist/Applicant facing Trail for offence under Section 407 I.P.C.-rejection by Session Judge-heldproper-offence being non - compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C.-can not be settled on the basis of compromise. Held: Para 10 & 11 Therefore, the trial court could not consider the offences to be compoundable, which are not mentioned under section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In these circumstances, this criminal revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, this revision is hereby dismissed. Case law discussed: ACC-200 Page-372 1999 ACC-372 1999 ACC (Vol. 38)-367 (Delivered by Hon'ble Shiv Shanker. J.) 1. This revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 1 All] Balveer Prasad V. State of U.P. and others 101 28.06.2006 passed in Session Trial No. 15 of 1998 (State Vs. Shiv Charan Lal & others) under section 307, IPC Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, whereby the application moved on behalf of the accused person regarding permission, along with the compromise application between the parties was rejected. 2. Brief facts arising out of this revision are that the accused persons Shiv Charan Lal and others are facing trial before the Sessions Judge, under section 307, IPC and the case is still pending since 24th November 1999. Thereafter, the present application and compromise application moved before the trial Court were rejected. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard the arguments of leaned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned AGA and perused the records. 4. The application was moved on behalf of the revisionist and time was taken to show the case law after lunch. No case law regarding permission to compromise in the case was produced. Thereafter, it was rejected on the ground that the offence under section 307, I.P.C. is not compoundable under section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code. 5. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that there are several pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court that the case may be decided on the basis of the compromise. However, it is not compoundable. 6. Learned AGA has submitted that the Court below has not committed any error of law. Subordinate Court is the Court of law. Therefore, the provisions provided in the Act or Acts shall be complied. In the present case, revisionist and others were facing the trial for the charge under section 307 of Indian Penal Code, which is not compoundable under section 320 Cr.P.C. Therefore, learned court below has rightly rejected the application of compromise. Learned counsel for the revisionist has attracted my attention towards the following pronouncements:- 1. Barsati and others Vs. State of UP and another ACC 2000 Page 372 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court. 2. Bhawani Prasad Vs. State of UP ACC 1999 Page 372 passed by Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. 3. Km. Madhurima Bhargava and others Vs. State of UP and another 1999 Vol. 38 ACC Page 367. 4. Photostat copy of Criminal Revision No. 8106 of 2003 Pankaj Mishra and another Vs. State of UP and others. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court is the Court of justice and there are unfettered powers of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of Barsati and others Vs. State of UP, It appears that the trial Court has convicted the accused for the charge under sections 147, 323/149, and 325/149 IPC and 304 Part II read with section 149, IPC but in the appeal the conviction for the charge under section 304 Part II was set aside and rest of the convictions was affirmed. Therefore, the compromise was moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the charge under section 147, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC, which was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court has not allowed the compromise application regarding the 102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007 offence under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. 8. So far as the case law of Km. Madhurima Bhargawa and others Vs. State of UP is concerned, it has been held that offence under section 302, I.P.C. is non-compoundable offence. It cannot be compounded under the provision of section 482, Cr.P.C.. The proceedings can be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution, if parties are ready to compromise. Therefore, the revisionist is not liable to get any benefit from the above two pronouncements. 9. So far as unreported case of Criminal Revision No. 8106 of 2003 (Pankaj Mishra and another Vs. State of UP and others) is concerned, it relates to the family disputes under section 498-A, 323 and 506, IPC. It does not relate to the heinous crime for the offence under section 307, IPC. 10. Therefore, the trial court could not consider the offences to be compoundable, which are not mentioned under section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 11. In these circumstances, this criminal revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, this revision is hereby dismissed. 12. It is very old case. In the circumstances, the trial court is directed to decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties within three months as far as possible and information be sent by the trial court regarding disposal of the case thereafter. Revision Dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.08.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.46982 of 2006 Ugrasen Tiwari ...Petitioner Versus Narvadeshwar Tiwari ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.C. Singh Counsel for the Respondent: Code of Civil Procedure-Order 17 rule IPower to grant adjournments-more than five adjournments-court by exercising inherent power can grant further adjournment-on exceptional circumstances-provisions of order 17 rule I are not mandatory. Held: Para 4 The provision of Order XVII Rule 1 C.P.C. is procedural in nature and even though the provision is couched in a negative manner, it does not mean that under exceptional circumstances, the court is not empowered to grant an adjournment. The Court has the inherent power to grant an adjournment in exceptional circumstances on sufficient reasons being recorded. In the present case, the revisional court had rightly granted the adjournment upon payment o cost of Rs.200/-. The Supreme Court in Shikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and others AIR 2006 SC 396 has held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. is not mandatory in nature and that the Court has the inherent power to grant further time to file a written statement even after the expiry of 90 days. The same principle would squarely apply in Order XVII Rule 1 C.P.C. Consequently, I do not find any error in