Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharat Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36047 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. BHARAT YADAV S/O SHRI PURAN LAL YADAV,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O BALAJI WARD P.S. HATTA
TEHSIL HATTA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. PRAVEEN CHAURASIYA S/O SHRI PAROSHATTAM
LAL CHAURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O AZAD WARD
P.S. HATTA TEHSIL HATTA DISTRICT DAMOH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. NEERAJ @ PAPPU TIWARI S/O SHRI PREM
SHANKAR TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O RAMGOPALJI
WARD P.S. HATTA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI ABHINAV SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER No.1
AND 2 AND SHRI PRADEEP DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER No.3.
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION HATTA DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER)
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1258 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
1. BHARAT YADAV S/O SHRI PURAN LAL YADAV,
Signature Not Verified
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
Signed by: VINOD SHARMA
Signing time: 2/2/2024
5:44:15 PM
2
AGRICULTURE BALAJI WARD P.S. HATA TEH.
HATTA, DISTRICT DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRAVEEN CHAURASIYA S/O SHRI PARSHOTTAM
LAL CHAURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AZAD WARD P.S
HATA TEH. HATA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI ABHINAV SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THRO. P.S. HATA
DISTT. DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI JITENDRA SHRIVASTAVA - PANEL LAWYER )
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the concurrence of the parties, I have taken up this case for final
disposal.
2. This is a joint petition filed by the accused persons as well as
complainant. The petitioner No.1 and 2 are the accused whereas petitioner No.3
is the complainant in the case bearing S.T.No.100021/2014 vide judgment dated
17.02.2021, passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Hatta, District Damoh
(M.P.) whereby the petitioner No.1 was convicted and sentenced for the
offences punishable under Sections 324/34 and 326/34 of IPC and Section
25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act. and the petitioner No.2 was convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 324/34 and 326/34 of IPC.
3. The accused are in appeal before this Court i.e. Cr.A.No.1258/2021,
which is also attached with the present case. Vide the Code of Criminal
Procedure (M.P. Amendment) Act, 2007 i.e.Madhya Pradesh Act No.2 of
2008, entries related to Sections 317 and 318, in column No.6 the words
"Magistrate of First Class" were substituted with the words "Court of
Sessions". That is how the trial was concluded by the Court of Sessions for
which Cr.A.No.1258/2021 is pending against the judgment of conviction at the
instance of the petitioners No.1 and 2. During the pendency of the aforesaid
appeal, both the parties have entered into a compromise, the reference of which
finds mentioned in paragraph No.5 of the petition. They have entered into an
amicable resolution of the dispute and joint petition has been preferred i.e.
M.Cr.C.No.36047/2023. Factum of the compromise has been admitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner No.3 who is the original complainant in the
criminal case.
4. The State counsel, however, opposed the petition on the ground that
after the conviction of the accused, no such compromise can be entertained and
the offences are non compoundable in nature.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to Section 326 of
Cr.P.C submits that although the offences are non compoundable in nature, but
the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised even for non-
compoundable offence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and other
precedents of Hon'ble Apex Court as the dispute is having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly personal in character. Even if the dispute is against the State,
the gravity of offence can be appreciated as the same does not involve any
approach of perverted mind of the accused. The non heinous offences can be
annulled on the basis of the compromise irrespective of the fact that the trial has
already been concluded and appeal is pending against such conviction. Award
of punishment is not the sole criteria under justice delivering system.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal and another Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531 has observed that societal
method of applying laws. evenly, is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes
without saying that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the
High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the
circumstances of the case and the manner in which the incident had taken place
and the manner in which the compromise has also arrived at between the
parties. While doing so, due regard has to be given to the nature and
seriousness of the offences. The Hon'ble Apex Court while holding the
aforesaid view has also relied upon the past precedents i.e. Gyan Singh
(supra) and other judgments on the subject.
7. It is equally true that the grave offences involving moral turpitude,
striking moral fabric of the society or involve maters concerning public policy,
cannot be construed between two individuals or groups only. Such offence has
potential impact on the society at large. The exception carved out by the
Hon'ble Apex Court on the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the present
case in view of the nature of culpability of the petitioners No.1 and 2 determined
by the trial Court. Compounding can be allowed even at appellate stage and the
same will have the same affect.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.3 has very candidly accepted the
factum of compromise between the parties and further submitted that the
complainant has no objection in case the offences are allowed to be
compounded at the appellate stage and the petitioners No.1 and 2 be acquitted
of the charges on the basis of the compromise.
9. Learned counsel for the State, however opposed the prayer.
10. The touchstone for exercising the extra ordinary inherent power under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would secure the ends of justice. There cannot be any
straight jacket formula for exercising and constricting the powers of the High
Court to do substantial justice. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I deem it
appropriate to allow this petition. Parties i.e. petitioner No.1 and 2 on one hand
and petitioner No.3 on other hand are allowed to compound the offences. As a
result of the aforesaid, permission is granted to the parties to compound the
offences in terms of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
11. Resultantly, order dated 17.02.2021 passed in ST No.100021/2014
by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Hatta, District Damoh is hereby quashed
and pending Cr.A.No.1258/2021 is accordingly disposed of. Petitioners No.1
and 2 are hereby acquitted of the charges. Both the petitions are disposed off
accordingly.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vin**
