Skip to content


In Re: Harkisandas Haridas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 281 of 1908
Judge
Reported in(1908)10BOMLR1056
AppellantIn Re: Harkisandas Haridas
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 250, 345 -false or vexatious charge-compounding of offences-procedure.;an inquiry as to whether a charge is not frivolous or vexatious, under section 250 of the criminal procedure code, can only be instituted for the purpose of deciding whether compensation should be paid to the accused person.;proceedings under section 250 are inapplicable where the accused person has himself by agreement with the prosecutor arrived at a settlement and been a party to the compounding of the offence. - .....charged which is one of hurt had been compounded.2. the court, however, declined to accept the razinama apparently because it intended to institute an inquiry as to whether the charge was not frivolous or vexatious. that inquiry could only be instituted under section 250 of the criminal procedure code and it could only be instituted for the purpose of deciding whether compensation should be paid to the accused person.3. proceedings under that section seem to us to be inapplicable in a case where the accused person has himself by agreement with the prosecutor arrived at a settlement and been a party to the compounding of the offence. we, therefore, think that the magistrate ought to have accepted the razinama, as the parties were entitled under section 345 to compound the offence.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the complainant by his pleader presented a Razinama to the Court which stated that the offence charged which is one of hurt had been compounded.

2. The Court, however, declined to accept the Razinama apparently because it intended to institute an inquiry as to whether the charge was not frivolous or vexatious. That inquiry could only be instituted under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code and it could only be instituted for the purpose of deciding whether compensation should be paid to the accused person.

3. Proceedings under that section seem to us to be inapplicable in a case where the accused person has himself by agreement with the prosecutor arrived at a settlement and been a party to the compounding of the offence. We, therefore, think that the Magistrate ought to have accepted the Razinama, as the parties were entitled under Section 345 to compound the offence unconditionally, and we therefore direct that the compounding of the offence be recorded by the Magistrate and the case thus disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //