Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6802 MP
Judgement Date : 6 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 6th OF MAY, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1276 of 1998
Between:-
RAJESH , AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU TIWARI, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DINESH PRASAD PATEL, PANEL LAWYER
SHRI NAMAN GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT )
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.7791/2022, compromise application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and I.A. No.7792/2022, an application for grant of leave to compromise under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.
2. The appellant/ accused and complainant have been duly identified by their counsel Shri Himanshu Tiwari and Shri Naman Gupta. On a perusal of report dated 4.5.2022 by Registrar (J-II), it is apparent that complainant Smt. Imal Bai has entered into compromise with appellant on her own with her free will and volition and without any threat and inducement or pressure to settle her Signature Not Verified SAN dispute.
Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN Date: 2022.05.10 15:25:42 IST 3. Appellant and complainant are relative and resident of same village.
Incident took place long back on 10.3.1997. 25 years have elapsed and in this period no untoward incident transpired between them.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer has also not brought to my attention any other occurrence that would lead me to believe that the appellant is either a repeat offender or is unremorseful about what transpired.
5. It is undisputed that complainant has, on her own free will, without any compulsion, entered into a compromise and wishes to drop the present criminal proceedings against the appellant/accused. It cannot be overlooked that incident took place 25 years back and there was some dispute between the parties over transaction of money also. They are both resident of same village
and are from same society and are also relatives. They live in very close proximity to each other. So, I have no reason to doubt that the parties themselves have voluntarily settled their differences. Therefore, in order to avoid the revival of healed wounds, and to advance peace and harmony, it will be prudent to effectuate the present settlement.
6. Consequently, permission to compound the offence is granted. Compromise deed has been filed as parties have entered into compromise on their own free will without any compulsion. Compromise application is allowed.
7. As a sequel thereto, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.5.1998 passed in S.T.No.206/97 (State of M.P. Vs. Rajesh) under Section 354 of IPC is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of offence under Section 354 of IPC. Appellant's personal bond and bail bond shall stand discharged.
Signature Not Verified SAN
8. Appeal is allowed and disposed off in above terms. Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN Date: 2022.05.10 15:25:42 IST
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE mrs. mishra
Signature Not Verified SAN
Digitally signed by AMITABH RANJAN Date: 2022.05.10 15:25:42 IST
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!