Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 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 12 th OF APRIL, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5070 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. RAM SINGH S/O MANGILAL GUARJAR, AGED
ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
VILLAGE UNDWA. P.S. BILPANK DISTRICT
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. BHOJKAVAR S/O RAM RATAN GURJAR, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
VILLAGE UNDWA, P.S. BIPLANK DISTRICT
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MUNSHI S/O MULCHAND GURAR, AGED ABOUT
69 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE
UNDWA, P.S. BIPLANK DISTRICT RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. JAINARAYAN S/O DHANRAJ GURJAR, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
VILLAGE UNDWA, P.S. BIPLANK DISTRICT
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DHARA SINGH S/O DASHRATH GURJAR, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
VILLAGE UNDWA, P.S. BIPLANK DISTRICT
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. MANGILAL S/O MUNSHI GURJAR, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE
UNDWA, P.S. BIPLANK DISTRICT RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. KALU S/O DASHRATH GURJAR, AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE
UNDWA, P.S. BIPLANK DISTRICT RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. JAY SINGH S/O RAMRATAN GURJAR, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
VILLAGE UNDWA, P.S. BIPLANK DISTRICT
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 13/04/2023
2:21:02 PM
2
9. RAJENDRA S/O GOVARDHAN GURJAR, AGED
ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
VILLAGE UNDWA, P.S. BIPLANK DISTRICT
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
10. KAILASH S/O GOVARDHAN GURJAR, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
VILLAGE UNDWA, P.S. BIPLANK DISTRICT
RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. RAMTARAN S/O DANNA GURJAR, AGED ABOUT
65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE
UNDWA, P.S. BIPLANK DISTRICT RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(SHRI AMAR SINGH RATHORE - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BILPANK
DISTRICT RATLAM. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PANEL LAWYER AND SHRI ARPIT SINGH -
ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
The present appeal is filed against the order of conviction and sentence dated
31.03.2023 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in ST
No.2400231/2014, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section
148, 323/149(2), 307/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI 1year, 6
months, 5 year respectively with fine of Rs.1000, 1000, 6000/- with default
stipulations.
The parties have filed application for compounding IA No.5187/2023 and IA
No.5186/2023. The said application is signed by the complainants/victims duly
verified by the counsel for the complainants.
It is submitted that the appellants and the victims are resident of the same
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 13/04/2023
2:21:02 PM
village and they have entered into the compromise on their own free will and
coercion. It was a case of free fight and the complainants have also been
convicted under section 325/34, 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
RI of 3 years with fine by judgment dated 31.03.203 passed in Sessions Trial
No.2400232/2014.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence under section
307 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 13/04/2023
2:21:02 PM
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
the incident had taken place in the year 2013 and the parties have arrived at a
compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion and they have
amicably resolved their disputes, 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 appellants are acquitted of all the charges.
They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appellants
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: 13/04/2023
2:21:02 PM
