Gulshad Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8688 MP

                                  1                             CRA-11224-2019
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 CRA No. 11224 of 2019
            (GULSHAD KHAN AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


Jabalpur, Dated : 13-12-2021
      Shri Ishteyaq Husain, Advocate for the appellants.

      Shri Sachindra Raghuwanshi, Panel lawyer for the State.
      Shri Shahbaz Khan, Advocate for the complainant.
      Learned counsel for both the rival parties have jointly filed an
application being IA No.20078/2021 for permission to compound an offence

under Section 308/34 of IPC on the ground that both the rival parties have
entered into a compromise amicably without fear and favour. They both are
interested to reunite and lead a happy life. As the alleged offence is non-
compoundable, therefore, learned Trial court has refused to accept it and
keep continuing the proceedings against the appellants and ultimately, trial
Court vide its judgment dated 13.12.2019 passed in ST No.858/14 convicted
the appellants under Section 308/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for
3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- each.
      Further submitted that on the direction of this court dated 23.11.2021,

both rival parties appeared before the Registrar (J-II) of this court on
29.11.2021

where the factum of compromise has been verified and as per the report dated 29.11.2021 compromise has been found to be voluntarily and they are ready and willing to resolve their disputes voluntarily and without any undue influence, threat, coercion or pressure.

Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his contention has placed reliance on a recent decision of Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 834 and prayed that the appellants be acquitted of the alleged offence.

In view of the aforesaid case law and considering the settlement arrived at between the parties, application is allowed and the parties are permitted to compound the offence under Section 308/34 of IPC.

2 CRA-11224-2019 With the consent of both the parties, this appeal is finally heard. This appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.12.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No.858/14 whereby the appellants have been convicted for an offence

under Section 308/34 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- each, with default stipulation.

Undisputed facts of the case are that the appellants are husband and wife and the complainant is second wife of appellant no. 1.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he does not want to press the conviction recorded by the trial court. However, it has been submitted that the appellants and the complainant have entered into compromise and now, they are living peacefully and no dispute survives between the parties. Further it has been submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2014 and 7 years have elapsed by now. Appellant no. 1 has suffered the jail sentence of more than four months whereas appellant no. 2 has suffered the jail sentence of 18 days. The ends of justice would be met, if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has supported the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court.

However, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has fairly submitted that the complainant has settled her dispute with the appellants and has entered into compromise voluntarily. Therefore, a lenient view should be taken in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. Since the learned counsel for the appellants has not pressed for conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial court under Section 308/34 of the IPC, the same is hereby affirmed as the conviction is well founded. However, looking to all circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellants and the 3 CRA-11224-2019 complainant have entered into compromise voluntarily and are living peacefully and now, no dispute survives between them, no useful purpose would be served by again sending the appellants to the jail. The appellants have suffered the jail sentence as mentioned above, in these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them.

Consequently, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants recorded under Section 308/34 of the IPC is hereby affirmed. However, the sentence thereof is hereby set aside and they are sentenced to the period already undergone by them as mentioned above.

Appellants are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.

Record of the trial Court be sent back immediately along with the copy of this order for compliance and necessary action.

CC as per rules.

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE

JP

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2021.12.15 16:24:19 IST