Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bablu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2023
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10761 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
BABLU S/O JAMNALAL, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR 319, CHHOTI BHAMORI,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI DURGESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION LASUDIYA,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANAND BHAT, GA FOR STATE )
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10361 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
RAJESH S/O ASHARAM VANVE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR 225 GREEN SINGAPOR
TALAWALI CHANDA, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SNAJAY JOSHI, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION LASUDIA
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANAND BHATT, GA FOR STATE )
....................................................................................................................................
Reserved on:23.11.2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 11/29/2023
7:08:18 PM
2
Delivered on: 29.11.2023
These criminal appeals were heard with the consent of parties and the
court pronounced the following:
JUDGMENT
1. Both the criminal appeals were heard analogously being arising out of
the same crime number and are being decided with the common order.
2. The present appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction
and sentence dated 13.07.2023, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge,
Indore in Sessions Trial No.1600436/2014, whereby, the appellants have been
convicted under sections 420, 467, 168 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 07,
10 and 07 years with fine of Rs.1000/- for each offences respective with default
stipulations. In addition, the appellant Bablu has also been convicted and
sentenced under Section 465 r/w 471 of IPC and sentenced for 02 years R.I.
with fine of Rs.1000/- alongwith default stipulations.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the appellants is
that Bablu and Rajesh alongwith other co-accused persons namely Rajesh and
Mittal have hatched a conspiracy and sale out the plot of the complainant on the
basis of forged and fabricated Mukhtiyarnama by keeping present another
person on behalf of the complainant before the registry officer. Hence, on the
complaint of the complainant, the offence was registered against the appellants
and co-accused persons.
4 . After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has framed the
charges against the appellants under Section 420, 467, 468
and 471 of IPC. The matter was later on committed to the
Court of sessions and the learned Trial Court has convicted
the appellants for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467,
468, 465/471 of IPC of IPC. Both the parties have filed an application for
compounding the offences before this Court.
5. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal
Registrar of the Court alongwith the record vide order dated 27.10.2023. In
compliance to the said order, the appellant/Bablo marked his presence before
t h e Principal Registrar through with his counsel in custody of escort and
complainant also appeared before the Principal Registrar. The compromise was
verified and a report dated 02.11.2023 has been submitted in which it is
mentioned that accused/appellant and the complainant has entered into
compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute is remained between the
accused/appellant and the complainant.
6 . Further, it is also pertinent to mention here that there is no
compromised filed before this Court regarding appellant Rajesh, but after going
through the record, it is evident that the complainant has fled compromise
application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. against both the appellants Bablu
and Rajesh and clearly narrated in his application that due to advise of reputed
and senior citizens of the vicinity, the matter has been settled by him with both
the appellants. This fact has also been mentioned in para no.14 of the judgment
of learned trial Court that the complainant has conceded in his cross-
examination that the compromise has been executed between the complainant
and both the appellants. In these conditions, it would be assumed that the
complainant has settled his dispute with both the appellants. Therefore, in light
of the aforesaid, counsel for both the parties prays for undergone of the jail
sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine
amount on the basis of compromise.
7. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant has already
undergone jail sentence of approximately two years and six months respectively
and the incident had taken place in the year 2013. As the parties have entered
into compromise, the appellants may be discharged from the aforesaid offence.
8 . Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that as per the
verification report, the offence under sections 467, 468 and 465/471 of IPC is
non-compoundable, therefore, the offence cannot be compounded under
section 320 of the Cr.P.C
9. Nevertheless, the appellant has not impugned the merits of conviction
confined their arguments as to sentencing of the appellants on the basis of
compromise application, but still this appellate Court is of the view to examine
the sanctity of conviction. On this aspect, I have gone through the order of the
trial Court. The prosecution case is not only fortified by the witnesses but also
well supported by documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court. In
view of the whole evidence produced by the prosecution, conclusion of learned
trial Court regarding conviction is appears to be on sound reasoning, it does not
warrant any interference. Accordingly, this finding with regard to conviction
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 465/471 of IPC, is hereby affirmed.
10. Now, the Court is turning to the sentencing part and effect of
compromise placed by the complainant/injured and accused person. In the
case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab And Anr, 2014 (6)
SCC 466 relying on the various judgments, the Apex Court permitted the
compounding in a non-compoundable case and quashed the criminal
proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para no.21 has observed as under:-
"21. However, we have some other cases decided by this
Court commenting upon the nature of offence under
Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case (supra), FIR
was lodged under sections 147,148,149,323,307,552 and
506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated and final
report was presented to the Court under Section 173 of the
Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. At
that stage, settlement was arrived at between parties. The
court accepted the settlement and quashed the
proceedings, relying upon the earlier judgment of this
Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012
AIR SCW 5333 wherein the court had observed that
inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are of
wide plentitude with no statutory limitation and the
guiding factors are: (1) to secure the needs of justice, or
(2) to prevent abuse of process of the court. While doing
so, commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the
court observed:
"Since the offences involved in this case are of a
personal nature and are not offences against the
society, we had enquired with learned counsel
appearing for the parties whether there is any
possibility of a settlement. We are happy to note that
due to efforts made by learned counsel, parties have
seen reason and have entered into a compromise."
This Court, thus, treated such offences including one
under section 307, IPC were of a personal nature and
not offences against the society."
11. On this aspect, the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in
Jagdish Chanana and others vs. State of Haryana and Another [(2008)
15 SCC 704], is also worth to mention here. It is held that in the cases where
offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474 r/w 34 of IPC
are attracted, the FIR can be quashed under Section 482 r/w Section 320 of
Cr.P.C. The observations are reproduced here as under:-
"2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th July 2006 rejecting
the prayer for quashing of FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City
Sonepat registered under Sections 419,420,465,468,469,471,472,474 read
with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. During the pendency of these proceedings in this Court,
Crl.Misc.Petition No. 42/2008 has been filed putting on record a
compromise deed dated 30th April 2007. The fact that a compromise has
indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the
compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out
of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise
with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending
in court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may
be.
3.In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will
succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal
one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been
entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings,
therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and
quash FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat and all
consequent proceedings."
12. Here, it is also poignant that this compromise has been filed at the
stage of appeal before this Court, but the same was also filed before the trial
Court also. On this point, the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Unnikrishnan
alias Unnikuttan versus State of Kerala reported in AIR 2017 Supreme
Court 1745 is worth referring in the context of this case as under:-
"10. In series of decisions i.e. Bharath Singh vs. State of
M.P. and Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal vs. State of J &
K, (1999) 2 SCC 213, Puttaswamy vs. State of Karnataka and
Anr, (2009) 1 SCC 71 1, this Court allowed the parties to
compound the offence even though the offence is a non-
compoundable depending on the facts and circumstances of each
cas e. In some cases this Court while imposing the fine amount
reduced the sentence to the period already undergone."
11. What emerges from the above is that even if an offence is not
compoundable within the scope of Section 320 of Code of Criminal
Procedure the Court may, in view of the compromise arrive at
between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining
the conviction."
13. Even this Court in Cr.A. No.268/2016 (Kanha @ Mahesh v/s The
State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 26.08.2017 as well as in Cr.A.
No.561/2010 (Radhakrishnan & 3 Others v/s The State of Madhya
Pradesh) decided on 18.04.2017 and in CRA No.604/2000 (Aaram singh vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 08.08.2019, Sohan Jangu &
others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in CRA No.550/2023 on
11.07.2023, has taken a similar view.
14. On this point, this Court is also also inclined to quote the excerpt of
the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan
Narayan Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra; [2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC)
which is as under:-
"28. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is the heart of the
criminal delivery system, but we do not find any legislative or
judicially laid down guidelines to assess the trial Court in meeting out
the just punishment to the accused facing trial before it after he is
held guilty of the charges. Nonetheless, if one goes through the
decisions of this Court, it would appear that this Court takes into
account a combination of different factors while exercising discretion
in sentencing, that is proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.
29. The compromise if entered at the later stage of the incident
or even after conviction can indeed be one of the factor in
interfering the sentence awarded to commensurate with the nature of
offence being committed to avoid bitterness in the families of the
accused and the victim and it will always be better to restore their
relation, if possible, but the compromise cannot be taken to be a
solitary basis until the other aggravating and mitigating factors also
support and are favourable to the accused for molding the sentence
which always has to be examined in the facts and circumstances of
the case on hand."
15. As the offence under Section 467, 468, 465/471 of the Indian Penal
Code is not compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, it is not possible to pass the order of acquittal on the basis of
compromise but, it is by now well settled that such a compromise can be taken
into account for reduction of sentence. The appellants and the complainant are
living in the same society, they are residing happily since last so many years,
they want to live with peace, and therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the
sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellant may be reduced to the
period already undergone
16. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court
and by this Court taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in
the year 2013 and further the appellants has already undergone jail sentence of
approximately two years and six months respectively and no fruitful purpose
would be served in keeping the appellant in jail even after the compromise
between the parties, this Court is of the view that while maintaining the
conviction under sections 420, 467, 468, 465/471 of IPC, the jail sentence under
this offence is reduced to the period already undergone on the basis of
compromise and fine amount of Rs.1000/- is also enhanced to Rs.10000/- for
each offences. The appellant Bablu and Rajesh are directed to deposit total fine
of Rs.40000/- & Rs.30000/- respectively within a month from today.
17. Subject to deposit the aforesaid fine amount by the appellants before
the trial Court with the aforesaid period, they shall be released from the jail.
18. The bail bond of the appellants shall be discharged after depositing
the enhanced fine amount only. In case of default of payment of fine amount,
the appellants shall undergo further six months S.I.
19. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding seized property stands
confirmed.
20. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
necessary compliance.
21. A copy of this order be kept in the record of connected criminal
appeal also.
22. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
