Ramgopal & Anr vs State Of M.P.& Anr
- SCC(2010) 13 SCC 540
- Neutral2010 INSC 458
- SCR[2010] 9 SCR 354
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An offence designated as non-compoundable under the Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed or the accused acquitted merely because the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, notwithstanding such settlement between them.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
RAMGOPAL & ANR. ...Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF M.P. & ANR. ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
The petitioners herein were convicted, inter alia, under Section 326 IPC. We understand that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement. However, in view of the fact that the offence mentioned in Section 326 is a non- compoundable offence, we cannot straightway acquit the petitioners the settlement between the parties, notwithstanding.
There are several offences under the IPC that are currently non-compoundable. These include offences punishable under Section 498-A, Section 326, etc. of the IPC. Some of such offence can be made compoundable by introducing a suitable amendment in the statute. We are of the opinion that the Law Commission of India could examine whether a suitable proposal can be sent to the Union Government in this regard. Any such step would not only relieve the courts of the burden of deciding cases in which the aggrieved parties have themselves arrived at a settlement, but may also encourage the process of re-conciliation between them. We, accordingly, request the Law Commission and the Government of India to examine all these aspects and take such steps as may be considered feasible.
The Secretary General of this Court shall forthwith send a copy of this order to the Law Commission of India as well as to the Law Secretary to the Government of India.
The Law Secretary is requested to place a copy of this order before the Hon'ble Minister of Law & Justice, Union of India.
..........................................J.
(MARKANDEY KATJU)
...........................................J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
New Delhi July 30, 2010
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free