Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Karnik vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 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 19 th OF APRIL, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3940 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VIJAY KARNIK S/O VEERSINGH, AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE 2/18, SANJAY GANDHI
NAGAR, NEAR OVER BRIDGE, INDORE DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH-ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION M.I.G. INDORE, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.S.THAKUR-DY.A.G.)
With the consent of parties, heard finally. This Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed against the judgment conviction and sentence
dated 3.03.2023 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions
Trial No.210053/2013, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under section
307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- and
under section 324 of IPC (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo 2 years RI(2
counts) and fine of Rs.500/- (two counts) with default stipulation.
2. As per the prosecution case, the appellant had caused fatal injury to Raju
for which he has been convicted under section 307 IPC and for causing injury to
Subhash and Ritu, he has been convicted under section 324 IPC. The appellant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 21-Apr-23 6:07:16
PM
and the complainant Raju filed an application for compounding, I.A.No.
4910/2023.
3. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal
Registrar/OSD of the Court. In compliance to the said order, the appellant was
produced in custody with Shri Devilal Dhurvey, ASI and complainant No.2 Raju
Verma also appeared before the Principal Registrar. The compromise was verified
and a report has been submitted that accused/appellant and the complainant have
entered into compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute remaining
between the accused and the complainant Raju.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that so far as conviction under section
324 IPC is concerned, the appellant has already undergone jail sentence of more
than 2 months and 26 days and the incident had taken place in the year 2013. The
offence under section 307 IPC has already been compromised with the victim
Raju and therefore, while maintaining the conviction under section 324 IPC, the
jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount
may be reasonably enhanced which may be directed to be paid to the
complainant-Subhash and Ritu.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence under
section 307 and 324 IPC are non-compoundable, therefore, the offence cannot be
compounded under section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
6. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 21-Apr-23 6:07:16
PM
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."
7. 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.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of the judgments
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh(supra),
the application for compounding is allowed and the appellant is acquitted from the
offence under section 307 IPC.
9. So far as offence under section 324 IPC is concerned, taking into
consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2013 and further the
appellant has already undergone jail sentence of about two years and 26 days and
no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the appellant in jail, this Court is of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 21-Apr-23 6:07:16
PM
the view that while maintaining the conviction under section 324 IPC, the jail
sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone. In view of aforesaid,
the conviction of appellant under section 324 IPC is maintained. However, the
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and fine amount of
Rs.1,000/- is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The fine amount shall be paid equally to
the victim Subhash and Ritu Mahajan by the trial court. The fine amount shall be
deposited in the trial court within a period of one month. The appellant is in
custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, upon
depositing the aforesaid enhanced fine amount.
In case, if the appellant fails to deposit the aforesaid enhanced fine amount
within stipulated period, he shall suffer the sentence awarded by the trial court.
With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 21-Apr-23 6:07:16
PM
