Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nitinsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 October, 2023
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 13 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10883 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NITINSINGH S/O NAVLESHWAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR
R/O. DEVI AHILYA COLONY TEHSIL HATOD
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(MS. ANITA JAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL WITH SHRI VIVEK SINGH,
LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
POLICE STATION CHHATRIPURA
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI GAURAV RAWAT, DY. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RES No.1./STATE)
(SHRI NARESH PIPLODIYA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.2)
.
This appeal coming on for judgement this day, th e court passed
the following:
JUDGMENT
With consent of the parties heard finally.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.08.2023 passed
b y the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, District-Indore in
Sessions Trial No.8100481/2014, whereby the appellant has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 16-10-
2023 16:28:22
convicted for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 467/471 of IPC,
1860 and sentenced to undergo 07 years, 10 years, 07 years and 08 years
R.I with fine and usual default stipulations.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that complainant Sangeetha lodged
a report that two three days before 26.09.2013 applicant met complainant
and informed her about sale of land bearing survey No.442 and 447/01
total, admeasuring 1.68 acre belonging to one Radheshyam and
Bheemsingh of Depalpur, he also informed her that he is having power of
attorney to execute the sale of aforesaid land. On 26.09.2013 the applicant
executed an agreement in favour of complainant for a consideration of
Rs.61 lakhs and the applicant received an advance payment of Rs.14 lakhs
from the complainant. Thereafter, the applicant remained absent and on
suspicion when complainant enquired applicant about the land and asked
for other documents with regard to the land she came to know that the
applicant was not having any power of attorney for executing the sale of
the aforesaid land and he has committed fraud by executing forged
documents. On the basis of which crime No.126/2014 was lodged against
the applicant for offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC,
1860.
3. During the pendency of this appeal both the parties have filed an
application for compounding the offences.
4. The said application was sent for verification before the
Principal Registrar of the Court vide order dated 09.10.2023. In
compliance to the said order, both the parties appeared before the
Principal Registrar and have been duly identified by their counsel. The
compromise was verified and a report dated 11.10.2023 has been
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 16-10-
2023 16:28:22
submitted in which it is mentioned that accused/appellant and the
complainants have entered into compromise with mutual consent. There is
no dispute is remained between the accused/appellants and the
complainants.
5. Counsel for the appellant submits that both the parties have
compromised the case against each other and the appellant has already
undergone more than one year and six months in custody and the incident
had taken place in the year 2014 as the parties have settled their dispute and
entered into compromise, the appellant may be discharged from the
aforesaid offence.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence
under sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is non-compoundable, therefore,
the same cannot be compounded under section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
7 . Looking to the fact that both the parties have entered into
compromise.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 statement of 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 and Section 467/471 of IPC, is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 16-10-
2023 16:28:22
hereby affirmed. However, so far as the offence under Section 420 is
concerned, in effect of compromise, the appellant discharged from
the aforesaid offence.
8. 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
parti es. 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
4 8 2 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
u p o n 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 16-10-
2023 16:28:22
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."
8. Here, it is also poignant that this compromise has been filed at
the stage of appeal before this Court. On this point, the view of Hon'ble
Ap ex 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 case. 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."
9. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 16-10-
2023 16:28:22
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.
10. 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
Signature Not Verified
mitigating factors also support and are favourable to the
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 16-10-
2023 16:28:22
accused for molding the sentence which always has to be
examined in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand."
11. As the offence under Sections 467, 468 and Section 467/471 are
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 since the offences involved in this case are of a personal
nature and are not offences against the society, it is by now well settled that
such a compromise can be taken into account for reduction of sentence.
The appellant and the complainant are living in the same society and they
want to live with peace, therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence
of imprisonment awarded against the appellant under Sections 467, 468
and Section 467/471 of IPC may be reduced to the period already
undergone
12. 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 2014 and further the appellant has already undergone
jail sentence of more than one year and 6 months 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 467, 468, 467/471of IPC, the jail sentence under
this offence is reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the
fine amount from Rs.1000/- to Rs.10,000/- for each offences under
Sections 467, 468, 467/471 of IPC (a total amount of Rs.30,000/-) within a
period of three months from today. Out of the total fine amount
Rs.10,000/- be paid to complainant. Fine amount and compensation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 16-10-
2023 16:28:22
already paid, if any, shall be adjusted. The bail bond of the appellant shall
be discharged after depositing the compensation amount. In case of default
of payment of fine amount, the appellant shall undergo further one month
S.I.
15. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding seized property
stands confirmed.
16. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
necessary compliance.
17.With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
Pending application, if any, stands closed.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
sumathi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 16-10-
2023 16:28:22
