SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Ashok Bhan and Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 641 of 2005 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.5170/2004). D/d. 29.4.2005.

Moreshwar - Appellants

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Another - Respondents

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 451, 452 and 354 - House trespass - As per allegation made against appellant-accused, it is evident that appellant had entered the house seeking sexual favours from complainants and not for causing any physical hurt or assault or wrongful restraint - Offence made out against appellant is only of simple house trespass under Section 451 and not under Section 452.

[Para 4]

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 320 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 451, 452 and 354 - Compounding of offence - Conviction of appellant-accused under Section 354 and 452 by court below - Appeal before Supreme Court - Parties arriving at settlement - Application for compounding the offence - Offence under Section 452 is not made out as alleged trespass by appellant not for putting complainant in fear of hurt or of assault or wrongful restraint and thus fall only under Section 451 - Since both the offence under section 354 and 451 are compoundabl, the offence ordered to be compounded.

[Para 4]

ORDER

Ashok Bhan, J. - Leave granted.

2. Appellant was charged under Sections 354 and 452, Indian Penal Code for allegedly committing trespass in the premises which were being occupied by the complainant-Pramila Chakole and her husband as tenants and that the appellant tried to outrage her modesty. Trial Court convicted the appellant on both counts and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment both under sections 354 and 452 Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- under sections 354 and 452 Indian Penal Code respectively. Appellant, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the first appellate court. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

3. Appellant, being aggrieved, filed a Revision Petition before the High Court which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has already undergone the entire sentence of imprisonment and the fine imposed has also been deposited. Now he has filed an application for compounding the offence. Complainant has also filed an affidavit consenting to the terms of the compounding of offence. The offence under Section 354 is compoundable whereas the offence under Section 452 is not compoundable. Shri Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that from the reading of the complaint and the charge framed, an offence under Section 452 is not made out as he did not trespass into the house occupied by the complainant for putting the complainant in the fear of hurt or of assault or of wrongful restraint.

4. Learned senior counsel also contends that from a reading of the complaint and the charge framed, if at all, an offence under Section 451 is made out which provides for the commission of house trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment. From the reading of the allegations made against the appellant, it is evident that the appellant had entered the house for seeking sexual favour from the complainant and not for causing any physical hurt or assault or wrongful restraint. We agree with the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the offence made out against the appellant is only under Section 451 which is compoundable and not under Section 452.

5. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the offence committed by the appellant is ordered to be compounded with consequential obligations resulting in his acquittal in terms of clause (8) of Section 320, Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

.