Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jan Mohammad @ Jainul & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 6 October, 2023
Author: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 2888 of 1998
(JAN MOHAMMAD @ JAINUL & ORS. AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF M.P.)
Dated : 06-10-2023
Shri Surendra Patel - Advocate for the appellants.
Shr Prasannjeet Chatterjee - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Shri Deepak Kumar Singh - Advocate for complainant/objector.
Heard on I.A. No.17709/2023 filed under Section 320(1) of Cr.P.C. and
I.A. No.17711/2023 filed under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.
These are the applications filed by the prosecutrix under Section 320(2)
of Cr.P.C. for seeking permission to compromise and also a compromise
application. The matter was referred to Registrar (J-II) for verification of
compromise and recording the statements. The report has been received from
his end along with statements of victim. According to that report, the parties
have arrived at a compromise with their free will.
It is prayed by the counsel for the parties that permission to compound
the offence be granted. This fact cannot be challenged that appellants were
convicted for the offence of Sections 366 and 376(2)(g) of IPC and were
sentenced for both the offences. It cannot be disputed that both these sections
are non compoundable in nature. The appellants have placed reliance upon the
of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajak Mohammad Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No(S).1395/2015 but that judgment
relates to determination of age of prosecutrix and has no relevance to decide a
non-compoundable case on the basis of compromise reached between the
parties. Hence, the case cited by the appellants has no application here.
In the judgment of Shiji @ Pappu & others Vs. Radhika & anr.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: POONAM
MANEKAR
Signing time: 10/7/2023
5:13:16 PM
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that while hearing appeal against conviction,
the High Court may not be competent to permit compounding of offence,
where the nature of offence is not compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.,
but the High Court may quash the proceedings in such cases under its inherent
powers prescribed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Incidentally, it has been held
by the Apex Court in case of Yogendra Yadav and others Vs. State of
Jharkhand & another (2014) 9 SCC 653 that the case in which the High
Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts
and circumstances of each cases and offences which involved moral turpitude
or grave offence like murder, rape etc., cannot be effaced by quashing the
proceedings because that will have harmful effects on the society. It was also
observed by Hon'ble Apex Court that such offence cannot be said to be
restricted to two individuals or two groups and if said offences are quashed, it
may send wrong signal to the society.
In similar context, three Judges Bench of Apex Court in case of Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 has observed that offence
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like
transaction or offence arising out of matrimonial dispute related to dowry etc.
or family disputes where wrong is basically private or personal in nature or
parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings.
On the basis of this well settled legal preposition, this Court is not
inclined to exercise inherent powers on the basis of compromise arrived
between the parties to set-aside the conviction of appellants in a grave offence
of gangrape punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Having considered these facts, the application for seeking permission to
Signed by: POONAM
MANEKAR
Signing time: 10/7/2023
5:13:16 PM
compound is dismissed and it is also observed that no case is made out for
exercising the inherent powers to quash the conviction of appellants merely for
the reason of compromise reached between the parties. This appeal requires
adjudication upon merits.
Accordingly, list this matter on 04.01.2024 for final hearing.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
pnm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: POONAM
MANEKAR
Signing time: 10/7/2023
5:13:16 PM
