1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 33/2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 140/2007 ( Najuk Dukru Puram .vs. State of Mah. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. V.D. Muley, Advocate for Applicant Mrs. K.S. Joshi, APP for Respondent. .... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 16, 2009 Heard. By this application, the appellant/accused convicted for offence punishable under Sections 307 and Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 14 years and 1 year for respective count and additionally ordered to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- on the first count, has applied for granting the permission for compounding the offences on the count of settlement being arrived in between himself and victim of an offence, who is none the less but his own wife. The affidavit of a wife for vouching the correctness of the matters stated in the application leading to arrival of settlement has been annexed with the application. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant for according the permission as prayed on 2 the count of matter being settled and hence continuing the criminal prosecution would be amounting to an ordeal, has been rightly objected by the learned APP on the count of according such a permission would be in violation of the statutory provision as both the offences for which the appellant has been convicted are non- compoundable. In said context the learned APP has also rightly placed reliance upon the decision in a case of Ram Lal and another .vs. State of J.K. reported in (1999) 2 SCC page 213 as observation made in para 4 of the said decision to the effect “we hold that an offence which law declares to be non-compoundable even with the permission of the Court cannot be compounded at all” squarely supports the objection raised by the prosecution that there being no merits in the application. Having regard to the aforesaid, the application sans merits deserves to be and is hereby rejected. Criminal Application No. 2339/2009 Heard. The learned counsel for the appellant states that he may be permitted to withdraw the application. The learned APP has no objection. Permission granted. The application stands disposed of as withdrawn. 3 Criminal Appeal No. 140/2007 The learned counsel for the appellant states that he will furnish the copies of the depositions to the prosecution. He states that accused being in custody for last 4 years, the appeal may be taken up for hearing. The learned APP agrees. List for final hearing on 19.11.2009. JUDGE halwai