Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gulab Singh vs State Of M.P. on 4 September, 2023
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 151 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
1. GULAB SINGH S/O BHOGIRAM MIRDHA, AGED ABOUT
38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: KRISHI R/O GRAM RITHODAN,
P.S. KARAHIYA, DISTT.GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
SAVITRI BAI W/O LATE BHOGI RAM, AGED ABOUT 55
2.
YEARS, OCCUPATION - HOUSEWIFE R/O GRAM
RITHODAN, P.S. KARAHIYA, DISTT.GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. MUKESH S/O BHOGIRAM, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
OCCUPATION - KRISHI R/O GRAM RITHODAN, P.S.
KARAHIYA, DISTT.GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI H.K.SINGH CHAUHAN - ADVOCATE )
AND
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH ARAKSHI KENDRA -KARAHIYA
DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 16.08.2023
Pronounced on : 04.09.2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for order, coming
on for pronouncement this day, Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar
pronounced the following:
ORDER
Present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 28.01.2012 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge,
Dabra (M.P.) in ST No.321/2011 whereby, appellant No.1 - Gulab Singh
has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and
Section 342 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for six months with fine
of Rs.500/- with default stipulations. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 - Savitri Bai
and Mukesh have been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 342 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6-6 months with fine
of Rs.500-500/-, with default stipulation.
During the course of appeal, it transpired that dispute between the
parties has been amicably settled for which applications (jointly signed by
both the parties) under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. (IA No.26340/2021) and
Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C (IA No. 26343/2021) for permission to
compromise in the matter have been moved by the complainant and
appellants.
This Court vide order dated 07.08.2023 parties had directed the
parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for
verification of factum of compromise. The Principal Registrar has
submitted his report on 10.08.2023 and verified the factum of
compromise.
Placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Ramgopal
and Another Vs. State of M.P (Cr.Appeal Nos.1489 of 2012 Order dated
29.09.2021), Ramawtar Vs. State of M.P (Cr.Appeal No.1393 of 2011
Order dated 25th October 2021), Ananda D.V. Vs. State of M.P. and
Another (Cr.Appeal Nos. 394-395 of 2021 Order 12th April 2021),
Sunny Vs. State of M.P. and Another (M.Cr.C.No.43098 of 2022 Order
dated 9th December 2022) and Shubham alias Lala Vs. The State of
M.P. and another (M.Cr.C.No.43974 of 2021 Order dated 29.9.2021),
learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case,
appellant No.1- Gulab Singh and complainant have solemnized marriage
and out of the wedlock, blessed with three children. They are living
happily without any dispute. The complainant does not wish to prosecute
the proceedings against the appellants.
Ku. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for complainant, supports
the contention of appellants and the compromise entered into between the
parties.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
The appellant Gulab Singh stands convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 307 and 342 of IPC for pushing his wife Uma
into well and thereby, attempting her murder and wrongfully confining
Uma in house. Appellants Mukesh and Savitri Bai are convicted for
offence punishable under Section 342 of IPC for confining Uma who is
their sister-in-law (Bhabhi) and daughter-in-law (Bahu) respectively. The
incident relates to year 2011. Thereafter, both the parties have amicably
settled the dispute. Husband - Gulab Singh and victim - Uma have
reconciled and proceeded with their matrimonial life as stated. They are
blessed with two more children. After the incident, Uma is residing with
Gulab Singh for last six years since the family is living happily. As the
dispute has become stale, both the parties have decided to proceed with
the life and amicably settled the dispute. Therefore, they wish to put an
end to the criminal proceeding.
Considering the nature of dispute, appellants' custody during trial
and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that parties
deserves to be permitted to settle their dispute. The accused has not taken
any undue advantage or acted against the law before or after the alleged
incident. No criminal antecedent or past conviction is alleged against the
appellants. There is nothing on record to suggest that the compromise
would have harmful effect on social and moral fabric of the society. It has
no bearing on the public order. The parties at their own volition, without
any coercion or compulsion, wish to accord a quietus to the past incident.
Therefore, amicable settlement of the criminal proceeding would advance
peace and harmony between both the parties and their respective families.
(Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; Ram
Gopal and Another Vs. State of M.P. order dated 29.09.2021 in
Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 relied upon.)
Considering aforementioned aspects, inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of CrPC is invoked and this criminal appeal is disposed off
with the following directions:-
(i) The offence emanating out of Crime No.44 of 2011, Police
Station- Karahiya District Gwalior leading to ST No.321 of 2011 stands
annulled.
(ii) The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2012 passed by
First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra District Gwalior (M.P.) in ST
No.321/2011 is set aside.
Consequently, appellant No.1 - Gulab Singh stands acquitted of
offence punishable under Sections 307 and 342 of IPC and appellant
Nos. 2 and 3 - Savitri Bai and Mukesh stand acquitted of offence
punishable under Section 342 of IPC. Their personal bond and surety
bond stand discharged.
Let a copy of order be sent to Learned Trial Court for information
and necessary action.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
vijay
VIJAY
Digitally signed by VIJAY TRIPATHI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR,
TRIPA
2.5.4.20=663cb09dd950bfc3ea7ed
4f02d97ddae5364f1d4b042dbc59
921b76e812d2d6b,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya
Pradesh,
THI
serialNumber=58392D8C4E7C969
3BFEEB5B46B3CA006F1127E89008
952BBEC528CE4D82551BD,
cn=VIJAY TRIPATHI
Date: 2023.09.04 18:32:48 +05'30'
