Narainji
v.
State

(High Court Of Rajasthan)

Appeal No. --------- | 05-08-1950


(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THIS is an accuseds application la revision refusing them to compound an offence punishable under Section 420, Penal Code under the provisions of the law as laid down under Section 345, Criminal P. C. It appears that a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-applicants on the ground that instead of supplying cocoanut oil to the complainant they cheated him and supplied water and thus put him in the aggregate to a loss of Rs. 5516-6

6. The two Courts below refused to give permission for the compounding of the offence mainly on three groundsfirstly, that the value of the property involved was large, secondly, that the investigation of the case involved great pains and time and, thirdly, the matter was of great public importance. The counsel for the accused-applicants has not been able to point out as to why in a case of this nature permission be given to compound the offence. The allegation of the prosecution is clearly to the effect that all the co-accused were aware as to what was being done. The nature of the case is certainly such wherein no question of granting permission for compounding the offence arises.

(3.) THE application in revision is accordingly dismissed.

Advocates List

For the Appearing Parties ---------

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.C. ATMA CHARAN

Eq Citation

1951 CRILJ 76

AIR 1951 RAJ 9

LQ/RajHC/1950/90

HeadNote

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 345 — Compounding of offence — When not permissible — Dismissed