Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 17 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27765 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
KAMAL S/O BHAGWANSINGH JATAV, AGED ABOUT 24
YE A R S , R/O SHIVALAYA ROAD JATAV MOHALLA
PACHORE, DISTT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR SAXENA, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
PACHORE DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. VICTIM X THROUGH POLICE STATION PACHORE
DISTRICT RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA - P.L. FOR STATE)
(SHRI MOHAMMAD IKRAM ANSARI, COUNSEL FOR THE
COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT [R-2].
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is a petition under Section 482 r/w Section 320(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.2022 passed by II
ASJ, Sarangpur, district Rajgarh in Cr.Appeal No.15/2020 whereby the
application for compromise under section 320(1) and 320(2) Cr.P.C. has been
rejected.
Signature Not Verified
2. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced under section 354
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 18-10-2023
11:49:42
and 354(d) IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs.100/-
and in default, one month RI for each offence. Being aggrieved by the order of
conviction and sentence, the applicant filed appeal before the II ASJ, Sarangpur
which is registered as Cr.Appeal No. 15/2020. The said application has been
rejected by the appellate court by the impugned order mainly on the ground that
alleged offences are not compoundable under sections 320(1) and 320(2)
Cr.P.C..
3. It would be apposite to survey the law in respect of compounding in
non-compoundable case. 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 can
he 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
o f f e n c e . 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
Signature Not Verified
justify such exercise of power although the
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 18-10-2023
11:49:42
ul ti ma te 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."
7. In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. 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.
8 . In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the facts of the present case
are examined. The matter is said to be compromised between the parties and
dispute has been amicably settled. The alleged offences do not fall within the
exception carved out by the apex court in the aforesaid judgments.
9. In view of aforesaid, the M.Cr.C. is allowed. The impugned order is
quashed in view of compromise between the parties and in the light of judgment
passed by Apex Court. The applicant is acquitted of the charges on the basis of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 18-10-2023
11:49:42
compounding. The bail bond of the applicant stands discharged.
C.c. as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 18-10-2023
11:49:42
