Gangabai vs The State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 4149 MP

                                                              1
                           IN     THE      HIGH        COURT OF MADHYA                  PRADESH
                                                         AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                 ON THE 16 th OF MARCH, 2023
                                              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 624 of 1999

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    GANGABAI W/O NANURAM AGED ABOUT 55
                                 YEARS, VILLAGE RAIPURA, PS KAYTHA (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    SHANKARLAL S/O NANURAM, AGED ABOUT 25
                                 YEARS, VILLAGE RAIPURA, PS KAYTHA (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI S.RAWAT - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH POLICE STATION
                           KAYTHA DISTRICT UJJAIN

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENT
                            (BY SHRI R.S BAIS - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

The present Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 16.04.1999 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.TNo. 79/1998 whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 years RI each with fine of Rs200/- with default stipulation.

The complainants filed an application for compounding IA No.30162/2021 under section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C and also IA No.30164/2021 for compromise

Signature Not Verified alongwith affidavits of the complainants. Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 17/03/2023 10:39:24 AM

The said aplication was sent for verification of the compromise before the Principal Registrar of this Court. The verification report has been submitted stating that the parties have entered into compromise out of their free will and there is no undue influence, pressure force, duress or coercsion over the parties who entered into amicable settlement.

Learned counsel for the state submits that the offence under section 306 of the IPC is non-compoundable.

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

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 17/03/2023 10:39:24 AM

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.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 1998 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. 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: 17/03/2023 10:39:24 AM