@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR Cr. ADE. No.197 (1999 SB: Hon’bie Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar Shn‘ Anand Pandey, counsel for the appellant. Shlti Pradeep Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. W Ms. Swati A“ Shukla, ORAL counsel JUDGMENT for the. complainant. a (13.1 1.2009) Hearci on interim application for compounding] compromise. 3. According to the prosecution case on 24.6.96, at about 10.80 and told him to vacate the house and abused him. The complainant told him not to abuse, but he (iiti not hear and assaulted him by knife on abdomen. Wife of the complainant \\ / l 1 / APPELLANT R Chain Pra$ad, son of Bhangi Sweepsr aged about 35 Resident of Bapu Up-Nagar, Station Toma, District Bilaspur Versus NON-APPMCANE K“ ' The State ofMadhya Pradesh . Chhattlsgarh Laxminbai and nebighourers, Kallu, Dinesh and Saroj were present on the spot. Thareafter, report EXP] 1 was lodged at Poh'm Station—Toma. The complainant was medically examined. After taking memorandum seizure was made and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Necessary seizures were made and investigation commenced. 4, After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, who in tum committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. The learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the Additional. Sessions Judge, Bilasnur, who framed charge and read over and explained it to the appellant. The appellant abjured the guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5‘ The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after evaluating the evidence and hearing‘the counsel for respective parties convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. 6. A compromise application has been tiled by the applicant on 6. 11.2009 under Section 320(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application was sent for verification to the Registry, which has been verified by the Registry. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the parties want to compromise the matter amicably. He stated that the oifence under Section 324 of the IPC is compoundable, but by the recent amendment in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by Amendment Act No.25} 2005, Section 324 of the IPC is made non— compoundable. He further stated that by notification dated 21.06.2006, Central Government in exercise of power conferred by Esme-section (2) of Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code ‘\"\ en / / (Amendment) Act, 2005 (No.25/2005) appointed the 23rd June, 2006 as the date, on which provisions of said Act, except the provisions of Sections 16, 25, 28(a), 28 (b), 38, 42(a), 42(1)), 42(i) (III), (IV) and 44 (a), shall come into force. It is clear from the above notiiication that the amendment making the oifence under Section 324 ofthe IPC non—compoundable, has not come into force. In the Amendment Act there is no provision to show that this Act would be applicable in pending cases retrospectively. Therefore, provision of Section 28(a) and 2800) of the Amendment Act would not be applicable in the instant case because the incident occurred prior to the Amendment Act No. 25/2005. He produced the copy of judgment in the matter of Adaliya and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 (4) M.P.H.T. 189. 8. On being asked by this Court, the complainant’s wife, who is present in Court (the complainant Ashok has died on 16.4.2006) stated that she wants to compromise the matter with the appellant on her free will, without any fear and that nobody has pressurized her and also wants to live peacefully and amicably. 9. Accordingly, no purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending further since the appellant and the complainant have arrived at a compromise amicably. 10. Taking into consideration the above, I am of the View that provision of Sections 28(a) and 28(b) of the Amendment Act is not applicable in the instant case because the incident occurred prior to the Amendment Act No. 25/ 2005. 11. The appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of the IPC which is compoundable with the permission of this Court as ' per provision under Section 320, sub—section(2) read with sub— \m @ section (5) ofthe Cn‘minal Procedure code and this Court does not find any reason for refusing the prayor of the appellantas also tho complainant for granting pormission to compouxid‘the offenco, hence pennission is granted. 12. In the result, the inten'm application is allowed and the appellant. 1's acquitted from the offence under Section 324 of the ' IPC, in View of the provision under sub-section (8) ofSeetion 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. Fine amount, if paid, be given to the complainant. 13. In terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the appeal stands disposed of. 14. O$oe is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the 1ecord to the trial Court for immediate compliance, i Sdl- R.L. Jhanwa" \1 Judge :\ \n/ {’ \y 7