One respondent cannot be allowed to contemplate compounding/ compromise on behalf of the other respondents

Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Janak Raj Kotwal, J., dismissed a petition filed under Section 561-A CrPC. to quash the criminal proceeding under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 120-B Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 pending before the Trial Court.

The petitioners (accused) had opened office of a Finance Company under the name and style as “Golden Land Development (India) Ltd,” in Jammu City and in due course of their business they duped the respondent and twenty others, who had deposited money with the said Company.

The quashing was sought on the merits of the case, primarily, on the ground that petitioners and the respondents of the alleged offences have had entered into a compromise by virtue of the compromise deed after the charge sheet was filed by the Crime Branch.

The matter of concern before the court was whether one respondent could be allowed to enter into a compromise deed on behalf of twenty other respondents.

The Court came to the conclusion that as only one person has been arrayed as the respondent, therefore, other victims cannot be said to have had entered into compromise on behalf of that respondent also nor that would have sufficed for the purpose of compounding the offences and hence the question of grant of permission to compound shall be considered only when made by all the respondents.[Vinod Mahajan v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine J&K 563, order dated 04-07-2018]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.