Bapulal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 288 MP

                                                               1
                           IN       THE      HIGH       COURT OF MADHYA                      PRADESH
                                                          AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                  ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8466 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.      BAPULAL S/O MOHANLAL TELI, AGED ABOUT 64
                                   YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O
                                   VILLAGE     BARKHEDA    PANTH     TEHSIL
                                   MALHARGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.      MUKESH S/O BAPULAL TELI, AGED ABOUT 36
                                   YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                                   BARKHEDA PANTH, TEHSIL MALHARGARH,
                                   DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.      SUDHIR @ LALA S/O BAPULAL TELI, AGED ABOUT
                                   32 YEARS,   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                   VILLAGE    BARKHEDA      PANTH,      TEHSIL
                                   MALHARGARH, DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA
                                   PRADESH)

                           4.      BHAGATRAM S/O BAPULAL TELI, AGED ABOUT 34
                                   YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE
                                   BARKHEDA PANTH, TEHSIL MALHARGARH,
                                   DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....APPELLANT
                           (SHRI L. SHUNONDO CHANDIRAMANI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION MALHARGARH,
                           DISTRICT MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                            (SHRI VISHAL SANOTHIYA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

The present appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 06/01/2023 9:56:02 AM

13.09.2022 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No.173/2017, whereby, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :-

Default Name Section Sentence Fine stipulation 307/34 (2 counts) 5-5 years Rs..5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- Total 06-06 months Bapulal IPC RI Rs.10,000/- RI 307/34 (2 counts) 5-5 years Rs..5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- Total 06-06 months Mukesh IPC RI Rs.10,000/- RI 307/34 (2 counts) 5-5 years Rs..5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- Total 06-06 months Sudhir IPC RI Rs.10,000/- RI 307/34 (2 counts) 5-5 years Rs..5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- Total 06-06 months Bhagatram IPC RI Rs.10,000/- RI

As per the prosecution case, on 01.07.2014 the complainant Shyamabi lodged a report at Police Station Malhargarh that when her husband Ganpatlal

and her son Deepak went to their farm on a tractor with driver Dashrat Meena, her brother-in-law (Jeth) Bapulal and his three sons namely Mukesh, Sudhir and Bhagatram assaulted her husband and her son with swords, sickle, injuring her husband Ganpatlal on chest and other parts of body and her son Deepak on back, neck and hand. On the said information, the police registered the offence under section 307/34 of the IPC. The trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned above.

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, an application under section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C for compounding of the offence was filed by the complainants/victims and accused persons 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 06/01/2023 9:56:02 AM

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 2014 and the appellants have already undergone jail since of more than two years. Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence under section 307 of the IPC is non-compoundable, therefore, the offence cannot be compounded 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 06/01/2023 9:56:02 AM

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.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2014 and the parties have arrived at a compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion and they have amicably resolved their disputes and further the appellants have already undergone jail sentence of about two years, 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: 06/01/2023 9:56:02 AM