Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lawrence Francis vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 September, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
M.Cr.C. No. 45037/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
(SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
M.Cr.C. No. 45037 of 2021
1. Lawrence Francis S/o. Francis Peter, Aged 60 years, Occupation Retired.
2. Sheldon Francis S/o. Lawrence Francis, Aged 36 years, Occupation :
Student.
Both r/o. 109, Post Office Road, Mhow.
---Applicants.
Versus
1. State of M.P. through P.S. Mhow, Dist. Indore.
2. Fr. Patrice Joseph S/o. Lewis Joseph, Aged 59 years, Occupation : Church
Priest, Add. Catholic Church, Rajeshwar School Campus, Mhow, Indore, at
present Add. Catholic Church Compound, Chapda, District Dewas.
---Respondents.
Date: 14.09.2021 :
Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Siddharth Jain, learned Panel Advocate for
respondent/State.
Shri Anendra Singh Parihar, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
ORDER
The applicants have filed the present petition u/s. 482 of the
Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of criminal Case No.696/2017 on the
basis of compromise.
The applicants are facing trial u/s. 294, 452, 323, 506 of the
IPC. At the final stage of the trial, an application u/s. 320(2) of the
Cr.P.C. has been filed. Vide order dated 31.8.2021 learned trial
Court has partly allowed the application by dropping the charges
u/s. 323/34 and 506-II of the IPC but rejected the application for
non-compoundable the offences u/s. 294 and 452 of the IPC.
Hence the present petition u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this
Court.
Shri Nilesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants
submits that since the compromise has been arrived at and the
trial Court is not competent to acquit the applicants on the basis of
- : 2 :-
M.Cr.C. No. 45037/2021
compromise as the offences u/s. 294 and 452 of IPC which are
non-compoundable, hence the applicants are before this Court ,
as High Court in exercise of powers u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash
the charges in the light of the judgment of the apex Court
rendered in the case of State of M.P. V/s. Laxmi Narayan &
others (Cr. Appeal No.349/2019 decided on 5.3.2019.
Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 submits that the complainant has no objection for
compounding the above offences as he has signed the application
u/s. 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court.
Shri Siddharth Jain, learned Panel Advocate appearing for
the respondent/State, opposes the prayer by submitting that the
offences punishable under section 294 and 452 are not
compoundable. The trial is at the stage of final arguments, but
instead of arguing the matter finally, the present application u/s.
320(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed at the belated stage and the
prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court
and they are supporting the prosecution case, evidence came on
record is liable to be considered by the trial Court , not in this
petition filed u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. Hence the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
It is correct that now the trial was fixed for final arguments
on 8.9.2021. The trial is pending since 2017 and all the
prosecution witnesses have been examined and it is not the case
of the applicants that witnesses have been turned hostile. Offences
u/s. 294 and 452 of IPC are non-compoundable offences. In the
case of Shiji @ Pappu & others V/s. Radhika & another :
(2011) 10 SCC 705 the apex court has found that the dispute is
resolved between the parties and if that being so, continuance of
the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the
allegations, will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose. In
- : 3 :-
M.Cr.C. No. 45037/2021
the present case, the situation is different as the complainant and
the prosecution witnesses have already been examined before the
trial Court in support of the prosecution and it is now for the trial
Court to evaluate their evidence.
In the case Murali v. State, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 726 the
Supreme Court of India has denied the compounding of offence in
view of section 320(9) Cr.P.C. as under :
"8. There can be no doubt that Section 320 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("CrPC") does not encapsulate
Sections 324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable
offences. Given the unequivocal language of Section 320(9)
CrPC which explicitly prohibits any compounding except as
permitted under the said provision, it would not be possible to
compound the appellants' offences. Notwithstanding thereto, it
appears to us that the fact of amicable settlement can be a
relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in the quantum of
sentence.
11. In later decisions including in Ram Lal v. State of
J&K [Ram Lal v. State of J&K, (1999) 2 SCC 213 : 1999 SCC
(Cri) 123], Bankat v. State of Maharashtra [Bankat v. State of
Maharashtra, (2005) 1 SCC 343 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 316], Mohar
Singh v. State of Rajasthan [Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan,
(2015) 11 SCC 226 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 370] , Nanda Gopalan
v. State of Kerala [Nanda Gopalan v. State of Kerala, (2015) 11
SCC 137 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 322] , Shankar v. State of
Maharashtra [Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 5 SCC
166 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 469] , this Court has taken note of the
compromise between parties to reduce the sentence of the
convicts even in serious non-compoundable offences.
12. Given this position of law and the peculiar
circumstances arising out of subsequent events, we are of the
considered opinion that it is a fit case to take a sympathetic view
and reconsider the quantum of sentences awarded to the
appellants. We say so because: first, the parties to the dispute
have mutually buried their hatchet. The separate affidavit of the
victim inspires confidence that the apology has voluntarily been
accepted given the efflux of time and owing to the maturity
brought about by age. There is no question of the settlement
being as a result of any coercion or inducement. Considering
that the parties are on friendly terms now and they inhabit the
same society, this is a fit case for reduction of sentence"
In view of the above no case for compounding of the offence is maid
out accordingly M.Cr.C. is dismissed.
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Alok/- Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2021.09.16 18:13:36 +05'30'
