Shivnarayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 619 MP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 619 MP
Judgement Date : 13 January, 2022

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shivnarayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 January, 2022

Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh

                        1
                                            Cr.Revision No.997of 2019

           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  BENCH AT INDORE

                       Cr.R. No.997/2019

                       Shivnarayan & ors.
                                Vs.
                    State of Madhya Pradesh

Indore; dated 13.01.2022

      Shri Anirudh Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants.
      Shri Viraj Godha, learned Govt. Advocate, for the
respondent/State.
      Shri Aman Mourya, learned counsel for the complainant.

                               ORDER

Petition is fixed for consideration on IA No.25407/2021 and

IA No.25408/2021.

IA No.25408/2021 is an application filed under Section

320(2) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the complainant Raisingh and

injured Gokulbai for granting permission to compromise the

matter with the applicants while IA No.25407/2021 is an

application filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the

applicants as well as complainant and injured- Gokulbai for

accepting the compromise application and acquitting the

applicants from the charges.

Factual matrix of the case is that applicants have been

convicted under Sections 452, 324/34, 323 of IPC and have been

sentenced to undergo RI for six months with fine of Rs.300/-each,

RI for six months with fine of Rs.300/- each and fine of Rs.600/-

each with default stipulation. In addition to above, applicant -

Shivnarayan has been convicted u/S 294 of IPC also and imposed

Cr.Revision No.997of 2019

with fine of 200/- with default stipulation, vide judgment dated

26.12.2012 passed by the Court of the JMFC, Khilchipur, Rajgarh

in Criminal Case No.537/2010.

Applicants appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.13/2013

filed before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh

has been dismissed vide judgment dated 15.02.2019 affirming the

judgment and sentenced passed by the aforesaid Court, thereafter,

they have filed this revision petition against the aforesaid

judgments.

Applicants have filed compromise application alongwith

application for granting permission to compromise the matter at

the stage of revision in non-compoundable offences punishable

under Sections 452 and 324/34 of IPC. Hon'ble the Apex Court in

the case of Narendra Singh & ors Vs. State of Punjab & ors

reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that where the conviction

is already recorded by the trial Court and the matter is at the

appellate stage, mere compromise between the parties would not

be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the

offender who has already been convicted by the trial Court.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held as

follows:-

"29.7 While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is

Cr.Revision No.997of 2019

yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

In the instant case, applicants have not only been convicted

by the trial Court i.e. Court of JMFC, Khilchipur, Rajgarh but their

appeal filed before the Court of 1 st Additional Sessions Judge,

Rajgarh has also been dismissed, therefore, copy of order dated

16.02.2021 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in

MCRC no.7315/2021 is of no assistance to the applicants as in

that matter trial was neither started nor concluded.

In the aforesaid circumstances, prayer for granting

permission to compromise, non-compoundable offences

punishable under Sections 452 and 324/34 of IPC cannot be

granted, as power of High Court in quashing any criminal

proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent