Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar & Ors. vs The State Of M.P. on 22 February, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1165 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
1. SURESH KUMAR S/O DEVI PATEL.
2. LAXMI PRASAD PATEL S/O DEV LAL PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, JAGNADHAR, POLOCE STATION
ANJANIYA, BAMHNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MUNNALAL (PARTY DELETED) S/O KHUMAN
SINGH CHOURASIA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
JAGNADHAR, POLOCE STATION ANJANIYA,
BAMHNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHANKARLAL S/O SIDHU SINGH MARKO, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, JAGNADHAR, POLOCE STATION
ANJANIYA, BAMHNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE)
AND
THE STATE OF M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. VINITA SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER )
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants to challenge their
conviction and sentence passed on 28.05.2005 in Special Case No.60/2003 by
Special Judge, Mandla under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred as 'SC/ST Act'), under the
impugned judgment the appellants were convicted under Section 435 and
323/34, (2 counts) of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months, 3 months
and 3 months respectively. Appellants Suresh Kumar, Laxmi Prasad and
Munnalal were also convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and
sentenced to undergo RI for 6 month and fine of Rs.500/- with default
stipulation.
2 . This appeal was taken up for hearing on 24.01.2024 and it was
informed by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the parties
have reached to a compromise and for this, I.A. No.1388/2024 has been filed.
In this application, a prayer for compromise was made hence, the parties were
directed to remain present before the Registrar (J-II) for verification of
compromise.
3 . It is claimed in the said interlocutory application that a dispute
suddenly arose between the parties and on that account the matter was reported
to the police. It is further claimed therein by both the parties that they have now
settled their dispute and do not want to continue this matter to linger on. It is
prayed that the appellants herein may be acquitted in the light of compromise
arrived at between the parties and their sentence be set aside.
4 . Registrar (J-II) has given his report dated 24.01.2024 regarding
verification of compromise application, in which it is mentioned that a
compromise has been reached between the parties and the complainant
Dukhiyabai has expressed that she has voluntarily entered into a compromise
with appellants No 1, 2 and 4. The statements of Dukhiyabai have also been
recorded and from the report dated 24.01.2024, the compromise appears to be
free from any threat, inducement or pressure and is voluntarily entered into by
the parties with their free-will and volition. Dukhiyabai is the wife of deceased
injured Molelal and is therefore competent to settle the dispute on behalf of
deceased injured.
5. All the appellants were convicted of sections 435 and 323 (2 counts)
of IPC and three of them have been convicted for the offence under Section
3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. The offences of Section 435 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of
SC/ST Act are non- compoundable in nature. In Cr.A.No.1489 of 2012
(Ramgopal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), the Supreme Court of India has held
that the cases which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by a
criminal Court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C
and any such attempt by the Court would amount to alteration, addition and
modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of
Legislature. It has also been held that there is no patent or latent ambiguity in the
language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and
include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have
been consciously kept out as non-compoundable. It was observed in the
judgment that nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an offence
within the framework of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. is not an embargo against
invoking inherent powers by the High Court vested in it under Section 482
Cr.P.C and the High Court, keeping in view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of a case and for justifiable reasons, can press Section 482
Cr.P.C. in aid to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure
the ends of justice.
5. A three Judges' Bench of Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (2019)5 SCC 688 has held as under:-
"(1) The power conferred under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to quash the criminal proceedings for the
non-compoundable offences can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and
when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;
(2) Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions,
which involved heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact
on society.
( 3 ) Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the
offences under the special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants,
while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely
on the basis of compromise between the victim and the
offender."
(4) xxx xxx xxx
(5) xxxxxxxxx"
6 . In the light of legal prepositions as manifested in the aforesaid
judgment, this Court is of the view that though the offence of Section 435 of
IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST Act are not compoundable under law, but
the circumstances of present case reveal that the alleged offence had its genesis
in a land dispute between the two parties and it happened in an attempt to
remove the encroachment of complainant side. It was not a crime of such a
nature, as would affect the society at large. It basically originated as an action
by Panchayat office bearer against encroachment and resulted into causing
injuries to victims and burning down their hut. Both the sides have now settled
their dispute. In the circumstances, it appears to be a fit case to exercise the
power of Section 482 Cr.P.C. because letting the dispute to grow, there are
chances that relationship between the parties is disrupted again. In view of legal
and factual circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment is set aside. Consequently, appellants are acquitted of the charge of
Sections 323/34 (2 counts), Section 435 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
Act. They are presently on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged. The fine
amount, if any, deposited by them be refunded.
7. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
information and necessary compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
DevS
