JUDGMENT Shiv Shanker, J.
1. This revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28-06-2006 passed in Session Trial No. 15 of 1998 (State v. Shiv Charan Lal and Ors.) under Section 307, IPC Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh, whereby the application moved on behalf of the accused person regarding permission, along with the compromise application between the parties was rejected.
2. Brief facts arising out of this revision are that the accused persons Shiv Charan Lal and others are facing trial before the Sessions Judge, under Section 307, IPC and the case is still pending since 24th November 1999. Thereafter, the present application and compromise application moved before the trial Court were rejected. Hence, this revision.
3. Heard the arguments of leaned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned AGA and perused the records.
4. The application was moved on behalf of the revisionist and time was taken to show the case law after lunch. No case law regarding permission to compromise in the case was produced. Thereafter, it was rejected on the ground that the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is not compoundable under Section 320 of Criminal Procedure Code.
5. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that there are several pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court that the case may be decided on the basis of the compromise. However, it is not compoundable.
6. Learned AGA has submitted that the Court below has not committed any error of law. Subordinate Court is the Court of law. Therefore, the provisions provided in the Act or Acts shall be complied. In the present case, revisionist and others were facing the trial for the charge under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, which is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Therefore, learned court below has rightly rejected the application of compromise.
7. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has attracted my attention towards the following pronouncements:
1. Barsati and Ors. v. State of UP and Anr. ACC 2000 Page 372 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court.
2. Bhawani Prasad v. State of UP ACC 1999 Page 372 passed by Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
3. Km. Madhurima Bhargava and Ors. v. State of UP and Anr. 1999 Vol. 38 ACC Page 367.
4. Photostat copy of Criminal Revision No. 8106 of 2003 Pankaj Mishra and Anr. v. State of UP and Ors.
8. Hon'ble Apex Court is the Court of justice and there are unfettered powers of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the case of Barsati and Ors. v. State of UP, It appears that the trial Court has convicted the accused for the charge under Sections 147, 323/149, and 325/149 IPC and 304 Part II read with Section 149, IPC but in the appeal the conviction for the charge under Section 304 Part II was set aside and rest of the convictions was affirmed. Therefore, the compromise was moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the charge under Section 147, 323/149 and 325/149 IPC, which was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court has not allowed the compromise application regarding the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
9. So far as the case law of Km. Madhurima Bhargawa and Ors. v. State of UP is concerned, it has been held that offence under Section 302, I.P.C. is non-compoundable offence. It cannot be compounded under the provision of Section 482, Cr.P.C.. The proceedings can be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution, if parties are ready to compromise. Therefore, the revisionist is not liable to get any benefit from the above two pronouncements.
10. So far as unreported case of Criminal Revision No. 8106 of 2003 (Pankaj Mishra and Anr. v. State of UP and Ors.) is concerned, it relates to the family disputes under Section 498A, 323 and 506, IPC. It does not relate to the heinous crime for the offence under Section 307, IPC.
Therefore, the trial court could not consider the offences to be compoundable, which are not mentioned under Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
11. In these circumstances, this criminal revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, this revision is hereby dismissed.
12. It is very old case. In the circumstances, the trial court is directed to decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties within three months as far as possible and information be sent by the trial court regarding disposal of the case thereafter.