Can compounding application u/s 320 for compoundable offence rejected by a Magistrate?
AMAR RANU
(Querist) 06 August 2011
This query is : Resolved
Recently,a Metropolitan Magistrate has rejected a compounding application,filed by original complainant u/s 320 of Crpc.
Any case law is requested from experts by which a Magistrate is bound to accept compounding application for compounding a compoundable offence like 406 of IPC.
A writ under 482 is being prepared to challenge this stupid order.
Ajay Bansal
(Expert) 06 August 2011
I think that High Court can ask explation of said M.M. without any case law.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 06 August 2011
The judgment passed can never be regarded as stupid. You may say it illegal or nullity or beyond merits but never designate it stupid otherwise you can become further loser in your proposed petition.
MM is within his powers to reject/dismiss any such application if no merit is found therein. You cannot dictate court.
AMAR RANU
(Querist) 06 August 2011
There are hundreds of judgments,particularly of subordinate judiciary,which can easily be classified as height of stupidity.
The SC and several judgments of HCs have already authenticated it,
Let us not go into this and it will open Pandora box.
Let us confine us to the subject matter of the aforesaid query only.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 06 August 2011
yes.. if the court feel that there is no merit mean its can be dismissed.. you have to challenge in appeal..
and your last line "A writ under 482 is being prepared to challenge this stupid order." is something wrong.. any writ petition can not be lie under sec 482 of cr.p.c.. this section stands for criminal original petitions only.. not for writ petititon.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 06 August 2011
A court vested with jurisdiction on a matter can decide it either allowing or denying the prayer which may be legally sound or bad,but we at bar can not name it "stupid"order.I agree with Expert Raj kumar makkad.
venkatesh Rao
(Expert) 06 August 2011
Raj Kumar makkad has rightly said it. If anybody is aggrived by the order of the lower court, one is at liberty to file appeal or revision. Just because the orders went against a person, the order can not be named stupid. making such remarks in public platform, in my humble opinion, amounts to contempt.
In the case on hand, the magistrate while hearing on an application u/s 320 cr.p.c., normally puts questions to the parties whether they have aggreed on compromise. If there appears any doubt in free consent of the parties, the magistrate can very well reject the compromise. You can go in revision against that order u/s 397 cr.p.c.either to the court of sessions or the high court.
