Chhagan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 18629 MP

                                                              1
                            IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                ON THE 6 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 316 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    CHHAGAN S/O DHAKARIYA, AGED ABOUT 30
                                 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE CHHAVNI
                                 KODIYA, P.S. SHIVGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    MUNNA S/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: LABOUR CHHAVNI KODIYA,
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANTS
                           (APPELLANT NO.1 BY SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE AND
                           APPELLANT NO.2 BY SHRI TUSHAR BHEDASGAONKAR - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THRU. P.S. NAMLI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                           ( RESPONDENT/STATE BY SHRI TARUN PAGARE - GOVT. ADVOCATE
                           AND COMPLAINANT BY SHRI MOHAMMAD IKRAM ANSARI - ADVOCATE)

                                 This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

                           following:
                                                               ORDER

1. Heard on IA No.12062/2023, an application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. and IA No.16340/2023, an application for suspension of sentence, on behalf of the appellants Chhagan and Munna.

2. The aforesaid applications were sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of this Court. A verification reports has been submitted in which it is submitted that the appellants and the complainant herself appeared Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 06-11-2023 17:57:22

for verification and stated that they have entered into compromise on the advice of elder family members and complainant does not want any action against the accused/appellant. It is also stated that the parties have voluntarily compromised the matter without any threat, inducement or coercion. They have amicably resolved their dispute.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the offence under Section 366-A of the IPC is not compoundable.

4. 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."

5. In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 06-11-2023 17:57:22

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.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2012 and the parties have arrived at a compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion and they have amicably resolved their disputes and they are living peaceful life, I am of the view that no purpose would be served in sending the appellant to the jail after such long period, therefore, the application(s) 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. His bail bonds stand discharged.

7. With the aforesaid, the present appeal is allowed and disposed off.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE ns

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEERAJ SARVATE Signing time: 06-11-2023 17:57:22