AIR 1955 MADRAS 369 ::1968 MadLW 70

Madras High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Satyanarayana Rao, P. Rajagopalan , JJ

(A) Contract Act (9 of 1872) , S.23— Stifling prosecution. Criminal P.C. (5 of 1898) , S.345— It may sometime be difficult to draw the line between the acceptance of reparation by the party aggrieved and an agreement not to prosecute the offender. Nonetheless it is a real distinction. It is where an injured party forgets his duty to the State and exceeds his right of accepting reparation for the wrong done to him and enters the domain prohibited by law by agreeing to terminate the proceedings in a criminal Court in a manner otherwise than in accordance with law, that S.23 applies and invalidates such an agreement. The agreement itself being unlawful, any consideration for such agreement paid by the offender is also unlawful. It is not termination of every criminal proceeding by agreement between the injured party and the offender that will fall within the scope of S.23 as opposed to public policy. Section 345 permits an injured person to compound specified offences. It may be that that compounding is effected after reparation is made for the wrong done to the injured party. But it is not the acceptance of that reparation that invalidates compounding even of the offences specified in S.345. It is only where recourse is not had to S.345, and the agreement between the injured person and the offender is to terminate the criminal proceedings agains....