Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nikhil @ Shailu Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 16 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No. 5710 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. NIKHIL @ SHAILU JAIN S/O SHRI NARENDRA
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS (WRONGLY
MENTIONED AS AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS IN THE
IMPUGNED ORDER), R/O VILAGE BAGRAJI,
POLICE STATION KUNDAM, DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NILESH @ JUGGAN S/O SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, (WRONGLY
MENTIONED AS AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS IN THE
IMPUGNED ORDER) R/O VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S.
KUNDAM DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SHREYANSH @ SHERU S/O SHRI MUNNALAL
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, (WRONGLY
MENTIONED AS AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS IN THE
IMPUGNED ORDER) R/O VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S.
KUNDAM DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. RAVI S/O SHRI JINESH JAIN, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS AGED ABOUT
28 YEARS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER) R/O
VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S. KUNDAM DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. NEERAJ @ CHOTU S/O SHRI NAREDNRA KUMAR
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, (WRONGLY
MENTIONED AS AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS IN THE
IMPUGNED ORDER) R/O VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S.
KUNDAM DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. PRAKASHCHAND S/O SHRI KHUBCHAND JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, (WRONGLY MENTIONED
AS AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS IN THE IMPUGNED
ORDER) R/O VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S. KUNDAM
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 16-Feb-24
7:07:09 PM
2
7. NEELESH @ KALLU S/O SHRI PRAKASHCHAND
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, (WRONGLY
MENTIONED AS AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS IN THE
IMPUGNED ORDER) R/O VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S.
KUNDAM DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. MANISH S/O SHRI PRAKASHCHAND JAIN, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS IN THE IMPUGNED
ORDER) R/O VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S. KUNDAM
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
9. JEETENDRA @ CHINTU S/O SHRI PRAMOD
KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
(WRONGLY MENTIONED AS AGED ABOUT 25
YEARS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER) R/O VILLAGE
BAGRAJI P.S. KUNDAM DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
10. NARENDRA S/O LATE SHRI PANNALAL JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, (WRONGLY MENTIONED
AS AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS IN THE IMPUGNED
ORDER) R/O VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S. KUNDAM
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
11. RAJENDRA @ RAJJAN S/O LATE SHRI PANNALAL
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, (WRONGLY
MENTIONED AS AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS IN THE
IMPUGNED ORDER) R/O VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S.
KUNDAM DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
12. AJAY @ AJJU S/O LATE SHRI PANNALAL JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, (WRONGLY MENTIONED
AS AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS IN THE IMPUGNED
ORDER) R/O VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S. KUNDAM
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
13. SARLA JAIN S/O SHRI AJAY JAIN, AGED ABOUT 56
YEARS, (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS AGED ABOUT
48 YEARS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER) R/O
VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S. KUNDAM DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
14. AMBUJ @ HONEY JAIN S/O SHRI AJAY JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, (WRONGLY MENTIONED
AS AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS IN THE IMPUGNED
ORDER) R/O VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S. KUNDAM
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 16-Feb-24
7:07:09 PM
3
15. ATISHAY @ LUCKY JAIN S/O SHRI AJAY JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, (WRONGLY MENTIONED
AS AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS IN THE IMPUGNED
ORDER) R/O VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S. KUNDAM
DISTRICT JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
16. PAPPU @ JAWAHAR @ JEETENDRA S/O SHRI SHIV
CHARAN SONI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BAGRAJI P.S. KUNDAM DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(APPLICANTS NO.1 TO 15 BY SHRI ABHINAV SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE
AND APPLICANT NO.16 BY SHRI PRADEEP DWIVEDI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION KUNDAM, DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ATUL SONI S/O SHRI VINOD SONI R/O VILLAGE
BAGRAJI, POLICE STATION KUNDAM, DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashment of prosecution on the ground of compromise between applicants
No.1 to 15 and applicant No.16.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants No.1 to 15 that they were tried for
offence under Sections 147, 323/149 (three counts) and under Section 452/149
of IPC and by judgment dated 20/02/2018 passed in RCT No.5314/2010, they
have been convicted. Against which, Criminal Appeal No.83/2018 is pending
before Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. It is submitted that there are
multiple injured persons. However, compromise has been arrived at between
applicants No.1 to 15 and one of the injured/ applicant No.16. It is further
submitted that although applicants No.1 to 15 have been convicted under
Section 323/149 of IPC for causing injury to applicant No.16 but there is no
conviction of the applicants No.1 to 15 for offence under Section 452 of IPC
qua the applicant No.16.
3. It is fairly conceded that even if compromise application is allowed, still
they will continue to face the conviction and sentence in respect of other injured
persons.
4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants.
5. The offence under Section 323 of IPC is compoundable. Furthermore,
even if the application is accepted, applicants No.1 to 15 would not stand
acquitted in toto and they will continue to face their conviction and sentence for
causing injury to two other injured persons.
6. Whether the conviction of applicants No.1 to 15 for offence under Section
452 of IPC was in respect of any allegation made by applicant No.16 is
concerned, this Court is of considered opinion that at this stage, it would not be
necessary to comment upon the same because Criminal Appeal is still pending.
7. Since offence under Section 452 of IPC is not compoundable, therefore
Appellate Court would not be in a position to accept the application for
compounding in respect of the said offence but compromise between the
parties can always be considered for the purposes of awarding sentence. Since
the compromise has not taken place with all the three injured persons and even
if the application is allowed, applicants No.1 to 15 would stand acquitted only
in respect of offence committed against applicant No.16, therefore, no useful
purpose would be served by entertaining this application.
8. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that
if the applicants file a similar application before the Appellate Court, then the
same shall be considered at the time of ascertaining the question of sentence for
the offence committed against applicant No.16.
9. From record, it appears that Criminal Appeal was filed in the year 2018.
Six long years have passed and Criminal Appeal is still pending.
10. Accordingly, Additional Sessions Judge before whom Criminal Appeal
No.83/2018 is pending, is directed to decide the appeal preferably within a
period of two months from today.
11. With aforesaid observation, application is finally disposed of.
12. The Registry is directed to immediately send a copy of this order to
Appellate Court for necessary information and compliance.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
S.M.
