Santosh Singh Patel vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6840 MP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 4910 of 2022 (SANTOSH SINGH PATEL Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 27-04-2023 Shri R.S.Patel- counsel for the appellant.

Shri Pankaj Raj- Panel Lawyer for the State.

Shri Dharmendra Patel- counsel for the complainant.

Considered I.A.Nos.2725/2023 & 2727/2023, which are applications under sections 320(2) & 320(1) of Cr.P.C. for compounding of offences and

setting aside impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on the basis of compromise between the parties out of court.

The applications are jointly filed by the complainant and appellant. Since the appellant is in jail, therefore, his signatures on the application have been verified by the Deputy Superintendent of Central Jail, Narsinghpur. The applications are supported by an affidavit of complainant.

In compliance of order of this Court dated 13.3.2023 the complainant appeared before the Registrar (Judicial-II) for verification of compromise. The Registrar (Judicial-II) vide his report dated 05.4.2023 stated that complainant

voluntarily entered into compromise out of his own free will and volition without any threat or inducement. The Registrar (J-II) further observed that mater is fully and finally settled between the parties.

The appellant has been convicted for offences under sections 467, 468, 471 & 420 of IPC. Except section 420 of IPC other offences are not compoundable, therefore, they cannot be permitted to be compounded. Signature Not Verified SAN

The Supreme Court in the case of Murali Vs. State (2021) 1 SCC 726 Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI Date: 2023.04.28 18:47:33 IST

has held as under:

"8. There can be no doubt that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C 1973 ("CrPC) does not encapsulate Sections 324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable offences. Given the unequivocal language of Section 320(9) Cr.P.C which explicitly prohibits any compounding except as permitted under the said provision, it would not be possible to compound the appellants offences. Notwithstanding thereto, it appears to us that the fact of amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in the quantum of sentence."

Hence, aforesaid interlocutory applications are partly allowed only to the extent of compounding of offence under section 420 of IPC. I.A.Nos.2725/2023 & 2727/2023 are allowed in part.

It is made clear that in view of the compromise appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 420 of IPC only, however, instant appeal shall

continue in respect of offences under sections 467, 468 & 471 of IPC.

Also considered I.A.No.8900/2023, which is second application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant-Santosh Singh Patel. First application being I.A.No.12928/2022 is dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.12.2022.

Vide impugned judgment dated 04.6.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities) Narsinghpur in SCATR No.42/2013 the appellant has been convicted for offences under sections 467, 468/471 & 420 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.P. for 05 years, 05 years & 03 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5000/- & Rs.2000/- respectively with default stipulations. However, this Court has acquitted the appellant from charge under section 420 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is innocent has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The appellant is in custody Signature Not Verified SAN

since the date of judgment. The parties have compromised the matter out of Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI Date: 2023.04.28 18:47:33 IST

court amicably. Final disposal of this appeal would take considerable time.

Hence, prayer has been made to suspend the jail sentence of appellant.

Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. Learned counsel for the complainant has no objection to prayer for suspension of sentence.

Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, compromise between the parties, that final disposal of this appeal would take considerable time, and without commenting on merits of the case, the application is allowed. It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned, remaining jail sentence imposed upon the appellant - Santosh Singh Patel shall remain suspended during the pendency of this case and he shall be released on bail.

The appellant shall appear before the trial Court concerned on 19.9.2023 and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed in this regard during the pendency of this case, without fail.

List for final hearing in due course.

SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE

RM

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by RAJESH MAMTANI Date: 2023.04.28 18:47:33 IST