Shravan Signh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6752 MP

                                                               1
                           IN       THE      HIGH       COURT OF MADHYA                      PRADESH
                                                          AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                   ON THE 26 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1101 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.      SHRAVAN SIGNH S/O LAXMAN SINGH RAJPUT,
                                   AGED   ABOUT   35  YEARS,  OCCUPATION:
                                   AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE CHIPLANA,     P.S.
                                   AFJALPUR, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
                                   PRADESH)

                           2.      DHANSUKH S/O NANDLAL GURJAR, AGED ABOUT
                                   36 YEARS,   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                   GURJARBARDIYA, P.S. AFJALPUR, DISTRICT
                                   MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.      SHYAMLAL S/O PRABHULAL BALAI, AGED ABOUT
                                   29    YEARS,     OCCUPATION:     LABOUR
                                   GURJARBARDIYA, P.S. AFJALPUR, DISTRICT
                                   MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANTS
                           (BY SHRI SHIVENDRA SINGH RAWAT - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION ALIRAJPUR
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                            (BY SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND
                            SHRI L.R BHATNAGAR- ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)

                                This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
                                                                ORDER

The present appeal is filed under section 374 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.2022 passed by 1st ASJ Mandsaur in ST No.1300138/2016 whereby, the appellants have been convicted under section Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 27/04/2023 5:42:30 PM

394 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI of 5 years with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulations.

2. The parties have filed IA No.3117/2023 for permission to compromise and IA No.3118/2023 for compromise. The application was sent for verification before the Principal Registrar/OSD. A verification report has been received and it is stated that the parties have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion. They have amicably resolved the dispute.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence under section 394 of IPC is non-compoundable offence under section 320 of Cr.P.C.

4. 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."

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 27/04/2023 5:42:30 PM

5. 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.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2016 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: 27/04/2023 5:42:30 PM