Mohansingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17178 MP

                                                        1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                    BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                            ON THE 16 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 168 of 2017

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    MOHANSINGH S/O AMARSINGH, AGED ABOUT 42
                                 YEAR S, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE
                                 LAADON, P.S. NALKHEDA, DISTT. AGAR (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                           2.    KALUSINGH S/O AMARSINGH, AGED ABOUT 52
                                 YEAR S, VILL LAADON, P S NALKHEDA, DISTT
                                 AGAR (MALWA) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    SARDARSINGH S/O KARANSINGH, AGED ABOUT
                                 47 YEARS, VILL LAADON, P S NALKHEDA, DISTT
                                 AGAR (MALWA) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           4.    MANSINGH S/O KARANSINGH, AGED ABOUT 40
                                 YEAR S, VILL LAADON, P S NALKHEDA, DISTT
                                 AGAR (MALWA) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           5.    PARVATSINGH S/O KARANSINGH, AGED ABOUT
                                 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL
                                 LAADON, P S NALKHEDA, DISTT AGAR (MALWA)
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           6.    ANTERSINGH S/O AMARSINGH, AGED ABOUT 37
                                 YE A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL
                                 LAADON, P S NALKHEDA, DISTT AGAR (MALWA)
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           7.    SURAJSINGH @ SURESH S/O DEVISINGH, AGED
                                 ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                 VILL LAADON, P S NALKHEDA, DISTT AGAR
                                 (MALWA) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           8.    GOVERDHAN S/O DEVISINGH, AGED ABOUT 22
                                 YE A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILL
                                 LAADON, P S NALKHEDA, DISTT AGAR (MALWA)
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           9.    MEHARBANSINGH S/O SARDARSINGH, AGED
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 10/20/2023
5:12:42 PM
                                                         2
                                 ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
                                 VILL LAADON, P S NALKHEDA, DISTT AGAR
                                 (MALWA) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....APPELLANT
                           (SHRI MANOJ SAXENA DAD R.N.21-7-98, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                           PETITIONER .

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THRU. P.S. NALKHEDA, DISTT. AGAR
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI RAJESH JOSHI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ADVOCATE
                           GENERAL& SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY, LEARNED COUNSEL
                           FOR THE RESPONDENT [COMP].

                                  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 appellants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Susner, District- Shajapur in Sessions Trial No.204/2014, whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 148 and 323/149 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 01 years and 01 year R.I with fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulations.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 04.07.2014, the complainant was working his field and thereafter, the appellants armed with deadly weapons reached on the field and due to some old enmity assaulted the complainant. Thereafter, some relatives have intervene and saved the complainant. Thereafter,

the complainant has filed a complaint and on the basis of which police

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/20/2023 5:12:42 PM

registered crime under Sections 148, 149, 307/149, 294, 506(2) of IPC. against the accused person. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and Section 323/149 of IPC by acquitting them from the charges under Section 307/149 of IPC.

3. 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. In compliance to the said order, the appellants marked their presence before the Principal Registrar and complainant also appeared before the Principal Registrar. The compromise was verified and a report dated 10.10.2023 has been submitted in which it is mentioned that accused/appellants 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 appellants submits that both the parties have compromised the case. As the parties have entered into compromise, the appellants may be discharged from the aforesaid offences. However, it is also submitted that the offence under Section 148 of IPC is non-compoundable and prays that the sentence of the appellants may be reduced to the already undergone period.

6 . Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that compromise have taken place between the parties and the same has been verified by Principal Registrar of this Court and he has no objection if the appellants may acquit or their sentence is reduced to the period already undergone on the basis of compromise.

7. Looking to the fact that both the parties have entered into compromise. Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/20/2023 5:12:42 PM

8. Looking to the fact that there is no public interest involved in the case, leave for compounding the aforesaid offence under Section 323/149 of IPC is allowed. Resultantly, the appellants are acquitted from the charges under Section 323/149 of IPC on the basis of compromise. However, the offence under Section 148 of IPC is non-compoundable of nature, but now, it is settled proposition of law that the sentence of the accused may be reduced to the period already undergone with leave of the Court in non-compoundable offences. Hence, the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone under Section 148 of IPC on the basis of compromise by affirming the fine amount.

9. The fine amount if already deposited by each of the appellants under section 323/149 of IPC respectively be returned.

10. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding seized property stands confirmed.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary compliance.

12.With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands partly allowed and disposed off.

Certified copy, as per rules.

Pending application, if any, stands closed.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 10/20/2023 5:12:42 PM