Madhya Pradesh High Court
Fida Hussain And 06 Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 120 of 2010
FIDA HUSSAIN AND 06 ORS.
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Gaurav Rawat, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the
complainant.
Heard on : 19.07.2024
Pronounced on : 08.08.2024
This criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for
judgment, coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the
following :
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been
filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 22.01.2010, passed
by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, District-Shajapur in
Sessions Trial No.32/2008, whereby the appellant Nos. 1 & 7 have
been convicted for offence under Section 148 of the Indian Panel
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as "IPC") and Section 324/149
(three counts) of IPC each and sentenced to undergo 06 months RI
and 01 year RI with fine of Rs.500/- each & Rs.1,000/- each
respectively with default stipulations.
2. As per the prosecution story, on 28.06.2007 at 10:30 am, the
complainant sitting in his house with his sons Hafiz and Shafiq and
they were talking about their agriculture land. At that time, appellants
came with knife and assaulted them with their common object to
murder of them and caused injuries to Shafiq and Hafiz with knife
due to land dispute. Thereafter, an FIR bearing Crime No. 370/2007
for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 307 of IPC and
Section 25 of Arms Act against the accused persons. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the learned
Trial Court has convicted the appellant Nos. 1 & 7 as mentioned in
para No. 1.
3. Before this Court, both the parties have filed an application for
compounding the offences.
4. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal
Registrar vide order dated 25.09.2023, but as per report dated
05.10.2023, on account of absence of parties, the factum of
compromise could not be verified. Again, vide order dated
12.10.2023, parties were further directed the parties to appear before
the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of factum of
compromise on 23.11.2023. In compliance of said order, Principal
Registrar of this Court has submitted that compromise petition has
been partly verified in respect of two victim persons, but it is pending
for verification of other concerned victim and the appellants. In this
sequence, on 01.12.2023, it was directed the parties to appear before
the Principal Registrar of this Court on 10.01.2024 and Principal
Registrar was directed to submit verification report. The Principal
Registrar has stated in the note sheet dated 10.01.2024 that due to
non presence of the parties, order dated 01.12.2023 could not be
complied with. Later on, vide order dated 26.02.2024 of this Court,
both parties were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar for
verification of compromise on 06.05.2024. In compliance to the said
order, the appellants and complainant also appeared before the
Principal Registrar. The compromise was verified and a report dated
09.07.2024 has been submitted that accused/appellants and the
complainant have entered into compromise with mutual consent.
There is no dispute remaining between the accused/appellants and the
complainant. During the verification of the compromise, counsel has
informed that appellant No. 1 Fida Hussain S/o Aulad Ali has
expired, hence, neither any I.A. in respect of death of above appellant
has been filed nor any application has been filed by legal
representative of the deceased Fida for compromise.
5. So far as the compromise under Section 324 of IPC is
concerned, it is worth to mention that at the time of incident i.e.
28.06.2007, Section 324 of IPC was compoundable. Hence, offence
against the appellants under Section 324 of IPC can be compounded,
even in the present position of law, where Section 324 of IPC is made
non-compoundable by the legislature.
6. In this regard, the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
Mathura Singh & Ors. VS. State of U.P. has observed as under :
13. We have examined the provisions
of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short "CrPC") which deals
with compounding of offences. Section
320(1) CrPC provides that the offences
punishable under the sections of the Penal
Code specified in the first two columns of
the table next following may be
compounded by the persons mentioned in
the third column of that table. Under sub-
section (2) of Section 320, offences
punishable under the sections of the Penal
Code, specified in the first two columns of
the table next following may, with the
permission of the court before which any
prosecution for such offence is pending, be
compounded by the persons mentioned in
the third column of that table. Voluntarily
causing hurt by dangerous weapons or
means by the accused constitutes an
offence under Section 324 IPC which can
be compounded by the person to whom
hurt is caused with the permission of the
court in terms of sub-section (2) of Section
320 CrPC.
14. It requires to be noticed that the CrPC
(Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005)
amended Section 320 of the Code and in
the table under sub-section (2)(a) the
words "voluntarily causing hurt by
dangerous weapons or means" in Column
1 and the entries relating thereto in
Columns 2 and 3 have been omitted. But
the said amendment by Act 25 of 2005 has
not yet been brought into force. Therefore,
the offence under Section 324 IPC is still
compoundable with the permission of the
court."
7. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the offence
under Section 324 of IPC can be compounded.
8. So far as the offence under Sections 148 & 324 of IPC are
concerned, it is compoundable with the leave of this Court. Since
there is no public interest involved in this case, the leave for
compromise is granted and in the effect of that, the appellants are
acquitted from the charges under Sections 148 and 324 of IPC
respectively on the basis of compromise.
9. In the wake of the aforesaid analysis, the findings of the
learned trial Court regarding conviction of the appellants under
Sections 148 & 324 of IPC deserves to be set aside. In the result
thereof, the present appeal filed by the appellants in effect of
compromise by the parties, is hereby allowed, having set aside the
impugned judgment, the appellants are acquitted from the charges
under Sections 148 & 324 of IPC. The fine amount, if any deposited
by the appellants shall be returned to them accordingly.
10. The appellants are already on bail. Their bail bonds would be
canceled.
11. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding seized property
stands confirmed.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
necessary compliance.
13. Pending application, if any shall be closed.
14. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindesh
