Ikku @ Ikram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11800 MP

                                                              1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                   ON THE 27 th OF JULY, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3986 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           IKKU @ IKRAM S/O RAHMAN KHA, AGED ABOUT 30
                           YE A R S , OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O MATAMAND
                           BIAORA, AT PRESENT R/O KAROND GAS RAHAT
                           COLONY, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                              .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH PARMAR - ADVOCATE)

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

                                                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI MUKESH PARWAL - G.A. FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE.
                           SHRI DEEPAK SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR THE COMPLAINANT/VICTIM)

                                  Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                             JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.3.2022 passed in Special Session Trial No.116/2007 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307,324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for 7 years and 6 month and fine of Rs.3000/-, Rs.1000/- respectively with default stipulation.

3. The appellant and the complainant filed an I.A No.7056/2023 for granting permission for compromise under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C and I.A No.7057/2023 for compromise. The said applications were sent for verification Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 27-07-2023 18:04:34

before the Principal Registrar, High Court of M.P., Bench at Indore for verification.

4. A verification report has been received in which it is stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion. There is no dispute remaining between the accused/appellant and the complainant.

5. Counsel for the State submits that the offence under Section 307/324 of IPC is non compoundable offence under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the provisions of Sections 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."

7. In subsequent orders, in the cases of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. and Ramgopal and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 27-07-2023 18:04:34

passed in Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 1488/2012 dated 27.03.2014 and 29.9.2021 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.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the parties have arrived at a compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion and they have amicably resolved their disputes and further that the incident had taken place in the year 2007, I am of the view that no purpose would be served in sending the appellant in jail. In view of the aforesaid, I.A No.7056/2023 for granting permission for compromise under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C and I.A No.7057/2023 for compromise is allowed in the light of the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Ramgopal (supra). The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the offences in view of compromise.

9. If the appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

10. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Pramod

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 27-07-2023 18:04:34