Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suratlal Dhurve vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3860 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SURATLAL DHURVE S/O RATANLAL DHURVE, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
VILLAGE BASI DOERI POLICE STATION SHAHPUR
SHAHPUR DISTRICTM DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SURENDRA PATEL - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION SHAHPUR DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR - PANEL LAWYER)
(COMPLAINANT BY SHRI HEMANT SEN - ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Counsel for the petitioner as well as victim submit that they have entered
into an amicable settlement and in terms of amicable settlement between the
parties, they were directed to appear before Registrar (Judicial -II) for the
purposes of recording their statement. They appeared before the Registrar (J-
II) on 5.1.2024 and their statements have been recorded and the Registrar (J-II)
while taking into consideration the statement of the appellant as well victim,
submitted a report in which it has been concluded that without there being any
coercion or threat out of own free will and volition the parties have entered into
compromise. The counsels thus submit that as the marriage of the appellant
and respondent No. 2 has been solemnized and they are also blessed with a son
who is aged about two years, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in K.
Dhandapani v. the State by the Inspector of Police [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 477]
the order of conviction and sentence dated 7.1.2023 deserves to be set aside.
2. Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that as the
appellant has been convicted of the offences as aforesaid, therefore, on the
basis of compromise only the offences cannot be compounded. In support of
his contention reliance is placed on decision of Apex Court in Sri Bimal
Chandra Ghosh v. State of Tripura [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 157].
3. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties,
the present appellant was prosecuted under Sections 376 (1), 341, 366, 342 and
324 of I.P.C which ultimately ensued in conviction of the appellant. It is
undisputed that the appellant as well as victim were entered into wedlock and
there is a son also out of the said wedlock. Thus, the subsequent events in the
present case require consideration inasmuch as the parties are at consensus that
the judgment of conviction be set aside. The Apex Court in the case of K.
Dhandapani (supra), while considering the subsequent events has set aside the
conviction and sentence of the accused appellant therein while observing as
under:
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing
for the State, opposed the grant of any relief to the
appellant on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged
14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the
first child when she was 15 years and second child was
born when she was 17 years. He argued that the
marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix is
not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the said
marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping
punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant
will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after
this Court grants relief to him.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, we are of the considered view that the conviction
and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of
the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the
subsequent events that have been brought to the notice
of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the
ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the
appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed
about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl
with the material uncle.
4. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view
that, as the present appellant and respondent No. 2 are now husband and wife
and they have son as well aged two years thus, considering the judgment of the
Apex Court in K. Dhandapani (supra), the application filed under Section 320
Cr.P.C is allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 7.1.2023 passed by
Session Judge, Dindori district Dindori in S.T. No. 132/2021 is set aside. The
appellant is acquitted of the charges. Bail bond also stands discharged.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vivek
