Khemraj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4550 MP

                                                1
              IN         THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                      AT INDORE
                                         BEFORE
                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                   ON THE 23 rd OF MARCH, 2023
                                CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3748 of 2018

             BETWEEN:-
             KHEMRAJ S/O PARWATSINGH CHARAN,
             AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
             R/O. GRAM SALWA RAJOD TEH SARDARPUR DIST.:
             DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                             .....APPELLANT
             (NONE FOR THE APPELLANT.)

             AND
             THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
             STATION HOUSE OFFICER
             THROUGH PS RAJOD
             DIST.: SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
             (GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE )

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

The present appeal is filed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar, in Sessions Trial No.212/2016, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 326, 323 of IPC; sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I and a fine of Rs.5000/- and Rs.500/- respectively with usual default stipulations.

On earlier occasion i.e. on 12.09.2022, parties had submitted that the Signature Not Verified matter has Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time:

been compromise and I.A. No.11669/2022 under Section 320 of 3/24/2023 11:38:15 AM Cr.P.C was filed for leave of the Court for compounding.

Parties were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar for verification of compromise. Verification report dated 27.09.2022 is attached in the file, in which it is submitted that the parties have compromised the matter willfully without any threat, coercion or inducement. Offence under Section 323 of IPC is compoundable.

Govt. Advocate submitted that offence under Section 326 of 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.

Signature Not Verified B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do Signed by: SUMATHI illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal 3/24/2023 11:38:15 AM proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent Signing time:

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 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.

On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of record, taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2016, the nature of allegations and that 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 appellant 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 appellant is

acquitted of all the charges. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appellant's bail bond stands discharged. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time:

3/24/2023 11:38:15 AM (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)

JUDGE sumathi

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI Signing time:

3/24/2023 11:38:15 AM