abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 195 OF 2008 Sunil Narendra Khairnar .. Applicant V/s State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.Vivek Salunke for the Applicant. Mrs. Prajakta Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATE : 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 DATE : 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 DATE : 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Rule. A.G.P. waives service. 2. Rule is heard forthwith by consent of parties. 3. The Appellate Court by giving adequate reasons acquitted the applicant of the charge under section 498-A of the I.P.C., thus partly reversing the conviction that was awarded by the Trial Court but further confirmed the conviction under sections 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. 4. During the course of hearing before the - 2 - Appellate Court, the applicant husband and his wife both appeared before the said Court personally. Besides, the wife filed the affidavit (Exhibit-20) along with an application (Exhibit-19) and prayed for compounding since the offences under sections 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. were compoundable under section 320(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is clear from the reading of section 320(1) of the Cr.P.C. that offences mentioned in the Table below sub-section (1) are compoundable and offences mentioned in Table below sub-section (2) can be compounded with the permission of the Court. But offence under sections 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. fall in Table below section 320(1) and not section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the Court ought to have allowed compounding of offences under sections 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. 5. That apart, in para 26 of the impugned appellate judgment, no sound reasoning has been furnished by the Appellate Court for refusing permission for compounding the said remaining offences under sections 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. In my opinion, the Appellate Court ought to have allowed the husband and wife to compound the offences for which the applicant husband was found guilty, namely for the charge under sections 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. This is particularly so looking to the affidavit (Exhibit-20) which clearly states that the wife started living with her husband after improvement - 3 - in their relationship. That apart, as already observed by me, both the applicant husband and his wife had personally presented themselves before the Additional Sessions Judge and prayed for compounding. In the peculiar facts of the case, I do not think any useful purpose would be served by maintaining the conviction under sections 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. since the relations between the applicant husband and his wife have become cordial and they are living together. This is all the more so because these offences are compoundable and there is no special reason for refusal of permission for compounding. 6. Learned A.P.P. opposed the present application. I find that the offences under sections 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. cannot be termed of such serious consequences which would, if allowed to be compounded, be contrary to public interest. 7. For the above reasons, therefore, I make the following order: ORDER ORDER ORDER (a) Criminal Revision Application No.195 of 2008 is allowed. The impugned judgment and order made by the Appellate Court is quashed and set aside in view of the application for compounding along with the affidavit - 4 - (Exhibit-20) filed by the wife. The applicant husband and his wife are allowed to compound the offences and consequently the appellate judgment awarding conviction and sentence under sections 323 and 506 of the I.P.C. is quashed and set aside. (b) Learned counsel for the applicant makes a statement that the fine amount of Rs.35,000/- was deposited in the Sessions Court, Nashik. The said amount be credited in the bank account of the applicant’s wife. (A.B. CHOUDHARI, J.)