Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dilip vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 22 nd OF DECEMBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12109 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. DILIP S/O RAMPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR SHUJALPUR MANDI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PREMSHANKAR S/O LALLA SINGH, AGED ABOUT
67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS HOUSE NO. 83,
NEAR VISHVAKARMA TEMPLE, IN FRONT OF
GANESH TEMPLE, BAGH SEVANIYA, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. VIRENDRA S/O HINDU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 34
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS KRISHNA
NAGAR COLONY, BEHIND MASJID, SHUJALPUR
MANDI, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. AJAD S/O RAMPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS WARD NO.16, KANJIVAI
MARG, SHUJALPUR MANDI, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SAJJAN SINGH S/O SHYAMLAL, AGED ABOUT 67
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS KRISHNA
NAGAR COLONY, BEHIND MASJID, SHUJALPUR
MANDI, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. DEEPAK S/O RAMPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 34
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS GALLA MANDI
ROAD, SHUJALPUR MANDI, DISTRICT SHAJAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SANJU S/O KAMAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 37
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS KRISHNA
NAGAR COLONY, SHUJALPUR MANDI DISTRICT
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
8. NARENDRA S/O HINIDU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 41
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS KRISHNA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 22-12-2023
17:35:35
2
NAGAR COLONY, SHUJALPUR MANDI, DISTRICT
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI PRATEEK MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION SHUJALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(MS.NISHA JAISWAL - PL FOR STATE AND SHRI KUSHAGRA JAIN -
ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present appeal is filed u/S.374 of Cr.P.C against the order of
conviction recorded by learned Special Judge, SC, ST Act, Shajapur dated
01.12.2022 in Misc. Case No.374/2015, convicting the appellants u/Ss.307,
326/149, 324/149, 323/149, 148, 452, 506-II, 427 of IPC and Sec.25(1B)(b) &
27 of Arms Act, 1959 (only against appellant No.4 Ajad) sentencing them to
different punishments upto 10 years along with fine with default stipulation.
2. As per the prosecution case, it has been alleged that the complainant
Lokendra Singh was watching TV with his wife, when appellants herein entered
his house from the gate with various weapons. It has been alleged that accused
Ajad caused injury to the complainant with sword, and the complainant started
running towards his room upstairs when Deepak hit his head with a stick, when
he shouted, his brothers Surendrasingh (PW 4), Rajendra Singh (PW 5),
Mahendrasingh (PW 6) and Gajju @ Gajenrasingh and Rekha (PW 2) and
Tanuja (PW 3) came to protect him. It was alleged that Narendra hit Surendra
with a knife to stomach, Sanju hit Rajendra with a stick hitting his right hand
thumb and forefingers. Dilip hit Mahendra with a stick injuring his left wrist and
shoulder, and Sajjansingh hit Gajendra with a lathi injuring his right wrist. It was
further alleged that Rekha and Tanuja were hit by Premshankar by stone and by
Virendra with iron rod, leading to injury to Rekha's right thumb, and Tanuja's
back of the head and waist. It was further alleged that the appellants herein
caused damage to TV, Inverter, Battery, Two motorcycles and a Maruti Van,
leading to a loss of approximately rupees one lakh. It was further alleged that
due to noise Ramprasad and Jitendra came in and it is alleged that the appellants
threatened to have ended the complainants life.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the pendency
of the trial, the matter was compromised before the trial court. During the
pendency of the appeal, the appellants and complainants have filed an
application IA No.18996/2023 for compromise and compounding u/S.320 of
Cr.P.C. stating that the dispute has been settled with him and they are
maintaining good relations with them and no purpose would be served for
sending them in jail. The Court sent the matter for verification of the aforesaid
compromise before the Registrar. After verifying the compromise, a report has
been submitted that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without
any threat, inducement and coercion. They have amicably settled their dispute.
It is further submitted that the incident had taken place in the year 2015 and the
appellants have already undergone jail since of more than two years.
4. Counsel for State submits that the offence u/Ss.307(149), 326(149),
324(149), 452 of IPC are non compoundable.
5. 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."
6. 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.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2015 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. Appellant No.8 Narendra is in jail.
He shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The other
appellants who are on bail, their bail bond stands discharged.
8. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
