Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
7. A First Information Report as is well known, must be read in its entirety. It is not in dispute that the parties entered into transactions relating F to supply of bags. The fact that some amount was due to the appellant from the First Informant, is not in dispute. The First Information Report itself disclosed that accounts were settled a year prior to the date of incident and the appellant owed a sum of about Rs.400-500 from Gautam Dubey.
8. According to the said Gautam Dubey, however, a sum of Rs.1500/- G only was due to him .
9. It is in the aforementioned premise the allegations that Gautam Dubey and the appellant slapped the First Informant and took out Rs.1580/- from his upper pocket must be viewed. [2007) 2 S.C.R.
10. No allegation was made that the money was paid by the informant having been put in fear of injury or putting him in such fear by the appellant was intentional.
11. The First Informant, admittedly, has also not delivered any property or valuable security to the appellant.
12. A distinction between theft and extortion is well known. Whereas offence of extortion is carried out by over-powering the will of the owner; in commission of an offence of theft the offender's intention is always to take without that person's consent.
13. We, therefore, are of the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, no case under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code was made out in the First Information Report.
14. It is true that having regard to the decision of this Court in Bankat (supra) that the Courts would have no power to allow compromise of a D prosecution when the same is not permissible in terms of Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therein it was held : "In our view, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent requires to be accepted. For compounding of the offences punishable under !PC, a complete scheme is provided under Section 320 of the Code. Sub-section (I) of Section 320 provides that the offences mentioned in the table provided thereunder can be compounded by the persons mentioned in column 3 of the said table. Further, sub-section (2) provides that the offences mentioned in the table could be compounded by the victim with the permission of the court. As against this, sub-section (9) specifically provides that "no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section". In view of the aforesaid legislative mandate, only the offences which are covered by Table I or Table 2 as stated above can be compounded and the rest of the offences punishable under IPC could not be compounded."
15. We may, however, notice that in Badrilal v. State of M.P., [2005] 7 SCC 55 a Division Bench of this Court held as under : "A joint petition of compromise has been filed on behalf of the parties in which prayer has been made for recording the compromise. –l DHANANJA Y@DHANANJA Y KUMAR SINGH v. ST A TE OFBIHAR [S.B. SINHA, J .] The offence under Section 307 !PC is not a compoundable one, A therefore, compromise cannot be recorded, but at the same time it is well settled that while awarding sentence the effect of compromise can be taken into consideration. It has been stated that the appellant has remained in custody for a period of about 14 months and there is no allegation that he assaulted the deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice B should be met in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellant by the trial court and reduced by the High Court is further reduced to the period already undergone."
16. We need not, having regard to the facts and circumstances, go into C the aforementioned contentious issue in the instant case, as we are of the view that no case has been made out for proceeding against the appellant under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. In that view of the matter, there was absolutely no reason as to why the settlement arrived at by and between the parties could not have been accepted, as the same would not come within the purview of Sub-Section (9) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. D
17. For the reasons aforementioned, while quashing the charge framed unc.'er Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, we direct the learned Magistrate to proceed to consider the question in regard to the maintainability of the compromise petition between the parties in accordance with law.
18. The appeal is allowed. No costs. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.