KHURSHEED AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 489 · Decided: 28-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
I 
KHURSHEED AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 
[C.K. THAKKER AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.) 
Code o/Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
ss. 320(1), (2) and (BJ-Compounding of offences-Conviction C 
u/ss. 323134 and 325134 !PC-Jn appeal before Supreme Court, 
compromise petition filed and permission for compounding sought-
HELD: Offence u/s 323 is compoundable at the instance of victim, 
permission of Court is not necessary-Offence u/s 325 is compoundable 
with permission of Court-Compounding of offence permitted and D 
accused ordered to be acquitted. 
In the instant appeal filed against the judgment and order of the 
High Com1 confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous 
imprisonment for six months u/s. 325 r/w s. 34 IPC and conviction and E 
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three months u/s. 323 r/w s. 34 
IPC, as modified by the Sessions Judge in an appeal filed by the accused, 
it was submitted on behalf of the accused-appellants that since the 
matter was compromised and amicable settlement arrived at between 
the accused persons and the victim-complainants, the compounding may 
F 
be allowed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. An offence of causing hurt punishable under Section 
323 IPC falls under sub-section (1) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal G 
Procedure, 1973. It is compoundable at the instance of the person to 
whom the hurt is caused. Permission of the Court is not necessary. Since 
the parties have compounded, the act of compounding is in accordance 
with law. [Para 10) [493-C] 
489 
H 
490 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. An offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 
325 IPC is covered by sub-section (2) of' Section 320 of the Code, and 
is, thus, compounded with the permission of the Court. The parties have 
compounded the offences. As stated in the compromise deed, 
complainant and his mother (injured) did not want any action against 
B the appellants (accused). The parties are neighbours, their houses are 
situated adjacent to each other and they have been living peacefully for 
the last many years and there is no dispute among them. It is further 
stated that to continue sweet relationship and harmony, complainant side 
does not want to take any action against the accused. 
C 
. [Paras 12and13) .[493-F,G; 494-A) 
1.3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and 
considering the deed ofcompromise, ends of justice would be met if 
necessary permission is granted for compounding the offence punishable 
D under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC as required by sub-section 
(2) of Section 320 of the Code. The offence punishable under Section 
323 IPC has already been compounded by the parties. 
[Paral4] [494-B,C) 
.1.4. The resultant effect of compounding of offences u/s. 320(8) Cr. 
E P.C. would be that once the offences have been compounded and the 
requisite permission is granted by the Court, the accused must be 
acquitted. Compounding of offence is permitted and the appellants are 
ordered to be acquitted. (Paras 15and16) [494-D, E] 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1302of2007. 
G 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.2006 of the High Court 
ofUttaranchal at Nainital in Crl: Revision No. 627 of2001. 
Ashok Kumar Sharma for fu,e Appellant~. 
· T. N. Singh, Rajeev Dubey, Kamlendra Misra, Jatinder Kumar 
Bhatia and Vishnu Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
\_ 
/ I 
~-
KHURSHEED v. STATE OF U.P. [THAK.KER, J.] 
491 
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by the 
High Court ofUttaranchal at Nainital on March 24, 2006 in Criminal 
Revision No. 627 of2001. By the said order, the High Court dismissed 
A 
the Revision and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed B 
by the Ilnd Assistant Session Judge, Roorkee on January 28, 1992 and 
confirmed by the District and Session Judge, Haridwar on June 9, 1992. 
3. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that according to the 
prosecution, on May 7, 1989 at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning, one 
Mahmood Hassan was returning to his house after offering a prayer C 
(namaz). He met Zahoor, Khursheed, Naseem and Islam who assaulted 
him. When Smt. Kulsoom @ Bhoori, wife of Mahmood Hassan 
attempted to save her husband, she was also assaulted. Injuries were 
sustained by both of them. The incident was witnessed by Islam, W aseel 
Ahmed and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.