Krashngopal Chaurasiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17676 MP

                                                               1
                            IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                               ON THE 25 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11695 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           KRASHNGOPAL CHAURASIYA S/O RAMBHAROSE
                           CHAURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION
                           SOCIAL WORKER, R/O. VIVEK NAGAR GWALIOR M.P.
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPELLANT
                           (BY SHRI ASHISH KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                           THANA MAHARAJPURA DISTRICT GWALIOR M.P.

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (BY SHRI ALOK AGNIHOTRI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                           (COMPLAINANT BY SHRI AKASH VISHWAKARMA - ADVOCATE)

                                 Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, t h e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

Parties have jointly moved an application (I.A.No.25284/2023) under Section 320(5) of CrPC seeking permission for compounding the offence.

Notably, this criminal appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 374 of CrPC against the judgment dated 02.12.2022 passed in Special Case PPS No.2/2022 by learned Special Judge (MP/MLA) District Gwalior whereby he stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to suffer two years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulations. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 10/27/2023 10:55:02 AM

A s per the averments made in the application, the parties have settled their dispute and therefore they are seeking for acquittal of the appellant saying that it was a dispute between two private parties and there was no amount involved relatable to government fund and when parties have arrived at a settlement, the application may be allowed and the accused/appellant may be acquitted from the offence.

Of a further note, the statements of parties have been recorded before the Registrar of this Court and as per their statements, without any fear and pressure, they have stated that they entered into settlement and as such they do not want to prosecute the matter any further.

At this juncture, it is imperative to appreciate the legal position, in that, the Supreme Court in re Devaram v. State of Rajasthan and another (2014) 13 SCC 275 has acquitted the accused on the fulcrum of settlement arrived at between the parties. The observations of the Supreme Court are reproduced hereinbelow;-

"4. An application has been filed in this Court by the appellant praying that in view of the settlement, offence may be permitted to be compounded. It is stated that the original complainant and the appellant are close relatives. It is stated that the original complainant expired on 30/05/1994. Thereafter, the son of the complainant is not keen on prosecuting the proceedings. The appellant is a senior citizen who suffers from various ailments. It is further stated that due to intervention of the elders of the village, dispute between the parties is resolved. The appellant has agreed to pay settlement amount to Arjun Ram. It is further stated in the application that the appellant has paid the fine amount. Affidavit has also been filed by Jagdish Prasad, Power of Attorney holder of the appellant confirming that the matter is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 10/27/2023 10:55:02 AM

settled.

5. Arjun Ram has also filed affidavit confirming that the matter is settled and the appellant has paid the agreed amount to him. Arjun Ram, respondent 2 herein has filed another affidavit dated 17-7-2014 stating that his brothers viz. (1) Hanuman Ram, (2) Hajari Ram, (3) Narayan Ram and (4) Ghirdhari Ram have issued Power of Attorney dated 12/06/2014 in his favour thereby nominating, constituting and appointing him for taking steps in connection with the present appeal. Paragraph 2 of the said affidavit reads thus:

" 2 . It is submitted that my brothers namely: (1) Hanuman Ram, (2) Hajari Ram, (3) Narayan Ram, (4) Ghirdhari Ram, all sons and legal heirs of Late Shri Hardeva Ram (the original complainant) have issued a power of attorney dated 12.06.2014, thereby nominating, constituting and appointing me i.e., Arjun Ram s/o. Late Hardeva Ram for doing or executing all or any of the acts or things in connection with the Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 2014, which is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A1 at pages 90 to 91".

6 . We must note that copy of Deed of Compromise dated 25/2/2014 is also filed in the court. Learned counsel for the parties have confirmed that the matter is settled.

7 . We are informed that out of two years imprisonment the appellant has undergone six months imprisonment. Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court by the person who is cheated. Since the parties are related to each other and they have decided to accord a quietus to their disputes and live peacefully, we permit them to compound the offence. Hence, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC for which the appellant was convicted is compounded because it is Signature Not Verified compoundable with the permission of the court. The Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 10/27/2023 10:55:02 AM

appellant is acquitted of the said charge." Adverting to the factual matrix of the case at hand, it is seen that the dispute between the parties was with regard to execution of sale-deed by virtue of power of attorney. The sale transaction made by the appellant was found frivolous inasmuch as he knew that the land which was sold to the complainant was not owned and possessed by him and as such he committed fraud.

Juxtaposing the view of the Supreme Court, as quoted hereinabove, with the factual matrix of the case at hand, I find no reason to deviate inasmuch as the parties have amicably subsided their grudges and thus I am also of the view that offence under Section 420 r/w 120-B IPC being compoundable with the permission of this Court, can be permitted to be compounded. Ergo, the appellant is acquitted from the said charge. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Criminal appeal is accordingly disposed of.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Sudesh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUDESH KUMAR SHUKLA Signing time: 10/27/2023 10:55:02 AM