Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yash Namdeo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 11 th OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 41183 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. YASH NAMDEO S/O SHRI BANSILAL TAILER,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
128 MG ROAD, DISTRICT INDORE. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MS. NEHA BANSAL D/O SHRI BALKISHAN
BANSAL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
DIRECTOR LENSSKART SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VI
JOHN TOWER, 393, PHASE III VDYOG VIHAR,
GURUGRAM HARYANA (HARYANA)
3. SAMEER CHOPRA S/O SHRI RAMESH CHOPRA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CFO
LENSKART SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VI JOHN
TOWER 393, PHASE III UDYOG VIHAR GURUGRAM
HARYANA (HARYANA)
4. SUNIL MANON S/O SHRI KBS MANI, AGED ABOUT
53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EXPANSION HEAD
LENSKART SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VI JOHN
TOWER 393, PHASE III UDYOG VIHAR GURUGRAM
HARYANA (HARYANA)
5. MANISH SHARMA S/O SDHRI NARENDRA
KUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS HEAD LENSKART
SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VI JOHN TOWER 393,
PHASE III UDYOG VIHAR GURUGRAM HARYANA
(HARYANA)
6. PRASHANT SHARMA S/O DR. S.G. SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AVP FINANCE
LENSKART SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VI JOHN
TOWER 393, PHASE III UDYOG VIHAR GURUGRAM
HARYANA (HARYANA)
7. RUCHIN SHARMA S/O SURESH SHARMA, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MANAGER
FINANCE LENSKART SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12/04/2023
10:09:19 AM
2
JOHN TOWER 393, PHASE III UDYOG VIHAR
GURUGRAM HARYANA (HARYANA)
8. SHAIL PATEL S/O SHRI AKHIL KANTILAL PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AREA
MANAGER LENSKART SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. VI
JOHN TOWER 393, PHASE III UDYOG VIHAR
GURUGRAM HARYANA (HARYANA)
.....APPLICANTS
(MS.ANURADHA BAGADIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH CRIME BRANCH
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. LENSCARE THROUGH IRSHAD KHAN 280 ANOOP
NAGAR, GALI NO. 07 PALASIA, DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI H.S. RATHORE - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE AND
SHRI AKASH SHARMA- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The parties submits that the matter has been compromised and settled
between them. They have filed IA No.5060/2023 and IA No.5058/2023 for
compromise.
The parties were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar/OSD of
this court for verification of compromise.
The verification report has been received with a note that the parties have
entered into the compromise out of their free will and there is no undue
influence, pressure, force, duress or coercion over the complainant who entered
into amicable settlement. The offence under section 420, 406 IPC are
compoundable.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12/04/2023
10:09:19 AM
Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence under
section 409 IPC is non-compoundable offence under section 320 of the
Cr.P.C.
The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the the provisions of section
320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C held that the compounding was permitted in a non-
compoundable offence. Relevant part of the order of the order reads as under :-
"Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of
settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as
compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable.
Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a
court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of
criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court
is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the
court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand,
the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal
offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the
material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify
such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be
acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do illustrate
the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or
FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482
of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of
the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing
criminal proceedings in B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma
and Shiji this Court has compounded the non-compoundable
offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the
distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320
and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of
inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and
different although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz.
acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment."
In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of
Punjab And Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 dated 27.03.2014
after relying on the judgment passed in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the
Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable case and
quashed the criminal proceedings.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12/04/2023
10:09:19 AM
the incident had taken place in the year 2022 and the parties have arrived at a
compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion and they
have amicably resolved their disputes and further the applicants have already
undergone jail sentence of about two years, I am of the view that no purpose
would be served in sending the appellants in jail therefore, the application for
compounding is allowed in view of the judgments passed by the Apex Court in
the cases of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (supra). The applicants are
acquitted of all the charges. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in
any other case. The applicants who are on bail, their bail bond stands
discharged.
With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 12/04/2023
10:09:19 AM
