Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durgaram @ Ram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 19 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7022 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
DURGARAM @ RAM S/O CHINTARAM, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE JETHVAY, PS. BARWAH
DIST. KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR SAXENA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THRU. PS. BHAGWANPURA, DISTRICT
KHARGONE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI GAURAV RAWAT, DY. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
(BY SHRI SOUMYA PATHAK, ADVOCATE)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
With consent of the parties heard finally.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by
the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.11.2017 passed by the
learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, District-Khargone (West Nimad) in
Sessions Trial No.31/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted for
offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860 and
sentenced to undergo 03 years R.I., 05 years R.I. and 03 years R.I with fine Rs.
1,000/-, Rs.2,000/- & Rs. 2,000/- and usual default stipulations.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that complainant Jitendra lodged a report
that he has business in the name of Pawan Traders of compost and pesticide in
Mongargaon Tehsil Bhagwanpura. Being a relative, the complainant has engaged
the appellant as Salesman in his business. The appellant has worked for 16
months in his shop. Due to agency of drip of Kisan Molding, the appellant was
not giving time in the business of complainant. The accused went to his village
on the occasion of Navratri in the month of 2016 and did not return even after
Dussehra. On being asked from the relatives and nearby persons, it came to
know that the accused fled away with one Roshni. Thereafter, he went to
Narmada Jhabua Grami Bank, Branch Mongargaon and took information about
bank account. At that time, the complainant knew that the accused has drawn
Rs.6,00,000/- from his account by making his forged sign on the cheque book.
On the basis of which Crime No.10/2017 was lodged against the applicant for
offence under Section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, 1860.
3. During the pendency of this appeal both the parties have filed an
application for compounding the offences.
4. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal
Registrar of the Court vide order dated 19.12.2023. In compliance to the said
order, both the parties appeared before the Principal Registrar and have been
duly identified by their counsel. The compromise was verified and a report
dated 06.02.2024 has been submitted in which it is mentioned that
accused/appellant and the complainants have entered into compromise with
mutual consent. No dispute remains between the accused/appellants and the
complainants.
5. Counsel for the appellant submits that both the parties have
compromised the case against each other and the appellant has already
undergone approximately eight months in custody and the incident had taken
place in the year 2017 as the parties have settled their dispute and entered into
compromise, the appellant may be discharged from the aforesaid offences.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence
under sections 467 and 468 of IPC are non-compoundable, therefore, the same
cannot be compounded under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
7. Looking to the fact that both parties have entered into compromise.
Nevertheless, the appellant has not impugned the merits of conviction confined
their arguments as to sentencing of the appellant on the basis of compromise
application, but still this appellate Court is of the view to examine the sanctity of
conviction. On this aspect, I have gone through the order of the trial Court. The
prosecution case is not only fortified by the statement of the witnesses but also
well supported by documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court. In
view of the whole evidence produced by the prosecution, conclusion of learned
trial Court regarding conviction appears to be on sound reasoning, it does not
warrant any interference. Accordingly, the findings with regard to conviction
under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC, are hereby affirmed.
8. Now, the Court is turning to the sentencing part and effect of
compromise placed by the complainant/injured and accused person. In the
case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab And Anr, 2014 (6)
SCC 466 relying on the various judgments, the Apex Court permitted the
compounding in a non-compoundable case and quashed the criminal
proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in para no.21 has observed as under:-
"21. However, we have some other cases decided by this
Court commenting upon the nature of offence under
Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case (supra), FIR
was lodged under sections 147,148,149,323,307,552 and
506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated and final
report was presented to the Court under Section 173 of the
Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. At
that stage, settlement was arrived at between parties. The
court accepted the settlement and quashed the
proceedings, relying upon the earlier judgment of this
Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012
AIR SCW 5333 wherein the court had observed that
inherent powers under section 482 of the Code are of
wide plentitude with no statutory limitation and the
guiding factors are: (1) to secure the needs of justice, or
(2) to prevent abuse of process of the court. While doing
so, commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the
court observed:
"Since the offences involved in this case are of a
personal nature and are not offences against the
society, we had enquired with learned counsel
appearing for the parties whether there is any
possibility of a settlement. We are happy to note that
due to efforts made by learned counsel, parties have
seen reason and have entered into a compromise."
This Court, thus, treated such offences including one
under section 307, IPC were of a personal nature and
not offences against the society."
9. On this aspect, the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in
Jagdish Chanana and others vs. State of Haryana and Another [(2008) 15
SCC 704], is also worth to mention here. It is held that in the cases where
offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474 r/w 34 of IPC
are attracted, the FIR can be quashed under Section 482 r/w Section 320 of
Cr.P.C. The observations are reproduced here as under:-
"2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th
July 2006 rejecting the prayer for quashing of FIR No.83
dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat registered under
Secti ons 419,420,465,468,469,471,472,474 read with
Section 34 of the IPC.
3. During the pendency of these proceedings in this Court,
Crl.Misc.Petition No. 42/2008 has been filed putting on
record a compromise deed dated 30th April 2007. The
fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is
admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the
disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out
of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of
the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise
being that proceedings pending in court may be withdrawn
or compromised or quashed, as the case may be.
3. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the
prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that
the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy
is involved in the transactions that had been entered into
between the parties. To continue with the proceedings,
therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly
allow the appeal and quash FIR No.83 dated 12th March
2005 P.S. City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings."
10. Here, it is also poignant that this compromise has been filed at the
stage of appeal before this Court. On this point, the view of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan versus State of Kerala
reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1745 is worth referring in the context
of this case as under:-
"10. In series of decisions i.e. Bharath Singh vs. State of
M.P. and Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal vs. State
of J & K, (1999) 2 SCC 213, Puttaswamy vs. State of
Karnataka and Anr, (2009) 1 SCC 71 1, this Court
allowed the parties to compound the offence even though
the offence is a non-compoundable depending on the facts
and circumstances of each case. In some cases this Court
while imposing the fine amount reduced the sentence to
the period already undergone."
11. What emerges from the above is that even if an offence
is not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 of
Code of Criminal Procedure the Court may, in view of the
compromise arrive at between the parties, reduce the
sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction."
11. Even this Court in Cr.A. No.268/2016 (Kanha @ Mahesh v/s The
State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 24.08.2017 as well as in Cr.A.
No.561/2010 (Radhakrishnan & 3 Others v/s The State of Madhya
Pradesh) decided on 18.04.2017 and in Cr.A. No.604/2000 (Aaram Singh vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 08.08.2019, Sohan Jangu &
others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Cr.A, No. 5550/2023 on
11.07.2023, has taken a similar view.
12. On this point, this Court is also inclined to quote the excerpt of the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Narayan
Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra; [2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC) which is as
under :-
"28. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is the heart of
the criminal delivery system, but we do not find any
legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assess the
trial Court in meeting out the just punishment to the
accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty of the
charges. Nonetheless, if one goes through the decisions of
thi s Court, it would appear that this Court takes into
account a combination of different factors while
exercising discretion in sentencing, that is proportionality,
deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.
29. The compromise if entered at the later stage of the
incident or even after conviction can indeed be one of the
factor in interfering t h e sentence awarded to
commensurate with the nature of offence being committed
to avoid bitterness in the families of the accused and the
victim and it will always be better to restore their
relation, if possible, but the compromise cannot be taken
to be a solitary basis until the other aggravating and
mitigating factors also support and are favourable to the
accused for molding the sentence which always has to be
examined in the facts and circumstances of the case on
hand."
1 3 . As the offence under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC are not
compoundable under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it
is not possible to pass the order of acquittal on the basis of compromise but, it
is by now well settled that such a compromise can be taken into account for
reduction of sentence. The appellant and complainant are living in the same
society, they are residing happily since last so many years, they want to live with
peace, and therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment
awarded against the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone
14. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court
and by this Court taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in
the year 2017 and further the appellant has already undergone jail sentence of
approximately eight months and no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping
the appellant in jail even after the compromise between the parties, this Court is
of the view that while maintaining the conviction under sections 420, 467 and
468 of IPC, the jail sentence under this offence is reduced to the period already
undergone on the basis of compromise and fine amount of Rs.1000/- is also
enhanced to Rs.5,000/- for each offences. The appellant Durgaram @ Ram is
directed to deposit total fine of Rs.15,000/- within a period of two months from
today.
15. Subject to deposit the aforesaid fine amount by the appellant before
the trial Court with the aforesaid period, he shall be released from the jail, if not
required in any other case.
16. The bail bond of the appellant shall be discharged after depositing the
enhanced fine amount only. In case of default of payment of fine amount, the
appellant shall undergo further two months S.I.
17. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding seized property stands
confirmed.
18. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
necessary compliance.
19. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindesh
