Bhanwarlal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 546 MP

                                    1
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 CRA No. 6613 of 2021
               (BHANWARLAL AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Indore, Dated : 12-01-2022
       Heard through Video Conferencing.

       Shri Ashay Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.
       Ms.     Vinita   Phaye,    learned   Government     Advocate     for   the
respondent/State.

Shri Rohit Panwar, learned counsel for the complainants.

01. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/accused against

the judgment dated 05.07.2021 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Garoth, District- Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No.236/2015 whereby they have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 307/34, 341, 326, 325/34, 324 and 427 of the I.P.C and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years, one month, five years, three years, two years and one month respectively with fine of Rs.1000/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.1000/-, Rs.1000/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- respectively with further default stipulation.

02. As per the prosecution, the appellants on 14.05.2015 at about 9:30

pm with full knowledge and intention caused injuries to the complainants Mukesh, Bharulal and Mukesh by way of sword and sticks near Banjarikheda on a public road. The injuries are grievous in nature and could have caused their death. On the date of incident, the appellants stopped the jeep in which the complainant party was travelling and thereafter all of them caused the injuries to them. On report having been made by the complainant party, the present appellants have been tried and convicted for the offences as aforesaid.

03. During pendency of this appeal, an application under Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing IA No.30276/2021 has jointly been filed by the appellants and the complainants for granting permission to enter into a compromise. Applications under Section 320 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure bearing IA No. 30311/2021 and I.A. No.30273/2021 have also been filed for recording of compromise between the appellants and the complainants with a prayer for accepting the compromise and acquitting the appellants of the charges.

04. By order dated 22.12.2021, all the parties were directed to remain personally present before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 05.01.2022

for verification of factum of compromise. In compliance of the said order, the parties appeared before the Principal Registrar on 05.01.2022. The complainants have stated that they have willfully, without any coercion or fraud entered into compromise with the appellants and they have no objection if the appellants are acquitted of the charges. The Principal Registrar has submitted his report dated 05.01.2022 stating that upon inquiry from the appellants and the complainants, he is of the view that the compromise between the parties has been entered willfully without undue pressure.

05. It is observed that offences under Sections 307/34, 326 and 324 of I.P.C. are non-compoundable offences. Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently in Criminal Appeal No. 1489/2012 (Ramgopal and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 29.09.2021 held that limited jurisdiction to compound an offence within the framework of Section 320 Code of Criminal Procedure is not an embargo against invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons can press Section 482 Cr.PC in aid to prevent abuse of process of Court/or to secure the ends of justice. In paragraph-19 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-

"19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.PC where the court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences 'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra ordinary power enjoined upon a

High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC or vested in this court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind ; (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the

purported offence and/or other relevant considerations."

06. When the aforesaid parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are applied to the facts of the present case it is seen that the injuries suffered by the complainants do not exhibit mental depravity of the appellants or commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override interest of justice. It is consequently immaterial that trial against the appellants has been concluded against them. The parties on their own violation, without any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and wish to settle their disputes. There is nothing on record to show that either prior or subsequent to the compromise any untoward incident has transpired between the parties. Quashing of the instant proceedings will advance peace, harmony and fellowship between the parties and the administration of Criminal Justice System would remain unaffected upon acceptance of the settlement between the parties.

07. Consequently, invoking and exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure IA No.30276/2021, IA No. 30311/2021 and I.A. No.30273/2021 filed by the appellants as well as by the

complainants are hereby allowed. The compromise entered into between them is accepted as a result of which all offences emanating out of the FIR leading to filing of the instant criminal appeal stands annulled. The judgment passed by the trial court is set aside. Resultantly, the appellants are acquitted of the charges for which they were convicted by the trial court. The bail bond and surety of the appellant shall also stand discharged.

Appeal is accordingly disposed off.

Certified copy as per rules.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE

jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI CHOURASIA Date: 2022.01.18 17:21:22 +05'30'