Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pintu @ Anil Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 July, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 20 th OF JULY, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1686 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
1. PINTU @ ANIL TIWARI S/O SHRI KANDHILAL,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, JAI PRAKASH NAGAR,
ADHARTAL JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. AMIT TIWARI S/O KANDHILAL TIWARI, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, JAI PRAKASH NAGAR,
ADHARTAL, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI OM SHANKAR PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TH: P.S. ADHARTAL
DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SHAILENDRA MISHRA - PANEL LAWYER)
Reserved on : 17.07.2023
Pronounced on : 20.07.2023
.......................................................................................................................
...
This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on
for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT
T he present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment
d ated 30.07.2012 passed in ST No.527/2010 by learned IIIrd Additional
Sessions Judge, Jabalpur holding the appellants guilty for the offence under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: POONAM
MANEKAR
Signing time: 7/22/2023
12:34:47 PM
Sections 452 and 324/34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo for each
offence R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- along with default stipulation.
During the pendency of this appeal, two applications under Section 320(5) of
Cr.P.C. namely I.A. No.4381/2022 and 4461/2022 were filed on 08.03.2022 by
Vinay Paroha, who is the complainant and the only injured person in the case.
Along with these two applications, application for permission to compromise
were also filed under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. which are marked as I.A.
Nos.4382/2022 and 4462/2022. This Court directed the parties vide order dated
01.07.2022 to remain personally present before Registrar (Judicial-II) on
05.07.2022 for verification of compromise. The verification report of same date
is available on record along with a document having signatures of both the
appellants and the complainant.
2. The facts of the case are that on 06.06.2010 at around 1:00 pm, both
the appellants entered into the house of complainant and referring to some
dispute between appellants and Yogesh, appellant No.1- Pintu gave three stab
wounds with knife to the complainant. Appellant No.2- Amit was instigating him
to cause these injuries. Upon hearing the cries of complainant, his brother came
on the spot and thereafter alone the appellants ran away. On this basis,
appellants were charge-sheeted and faced trial. They were acquitted of the
charge of Section 307/34 of IPC, but were convicted for offences punishable
under Sections 452 and 324/34 of IPC.
3 . In both the applications submitted under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.
similar prayer is made about seeking the permission of the Court for
compromise. The verification report submitted by the Registrar (Judicial-II)
reveals that compromise has been arrived at between the parties on their free
will or without exercise of any coercion or inducement. It is mentioned that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: POONAM
MANEKAR
Signing time: 7/22/2023
12:34:47 PM
amicable settlement has been reached between them and now dispute stands
fully and finally settled. The verification report establishes the fact that dispute
has been finally settled between the parties.
4 . The question that arises for decision is whether permission of
compromise can be granted for offences of Sections 324 and 452 of IPC,
which are non-compoundable in nature. On this aspect, the legal position is
settled by the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court that inherent powers of
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised concurrently with the appellate and
revisional jurisdiction and that while hearing the appeal against conviction under
an offence which is of non-compoundable nature, the High Court may not be
competent to permit compounding of the offence, but High Court may quash
the proceedings in such cases. For this, decision in Popular Muthiah Vs.
State represented by Inspector of Police reported in 2006 (7) SC 296 and
Shiji @ Pappu & others Vs. Radhika & anr. reported in (2011) 100 SCC
705 (Criminal Appeal No.2094/2011 ) can be referred to. It has also been
held in case of Shiji (supra) that the inherent powers under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. have to be exercised with utmost care and caution and only sparingly
for securing the ends of justice. The matter in hand involves a personal dispute
and does not have the dimensions to affect the public interest. Parties have
amicably settled the matter between them. It can be apprehended that if the
dispute is allowed to linger on between them, it would disturb their harmonious
relationship and may become the cause of further rift. Looking to the nature of
dispute, it is deemed appropriate to invoke the inherent powers under Section
4 8 2 of Cr.P.C. here. Accordingly, the conviction under Sections 452 and
324/34 of IPC is hereby quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: POONAM
MANEKAR
Signing time: 7/22/2023
12:34:47 PM
5. Accordingly, in the light of compromise and under the inherent powers
exercised by this Court by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence, the appellants are acquitted of the charges of Sections 452 and
324/34 of IPC. They are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged
forthwith. Fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them.
6. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands allowed and disposed of.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
pnm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: POONAM
MANEKAR
Signing time: 7/22/2023
12:34:47 PM
