Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashutosh Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 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 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10824 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ASHUTOSH PANDEY S/O UMESH PANDEY, AGED ABOUT
24 YEARS, R/O BOYS HOSTEL INDRAPURI, BHOPAL,
DISTT. BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SOURABH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. PIPLANI
P.S. PIPLANI, BHOPAL DISTT. BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR - ADVOCATE)
T h is appeal coming on for order this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
Counsels for the parties contend that in terms of order passed by this
Court dated 9.2.2024, parties appeared before the Registrar (Judicial-II) and
their statements have been recorded on 15.02.2024 wherein the parties have
unequivocally stated that they have entered into compromise with their free will
and volition and without any threat and inducement. Thereafter, report has been
produced before this Court. Thus, it is contended by the counsel for the parties
that as the matter has been compromised between the parties, the proceedings
pending against the present applicants be quashed.
2. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties,
it is evident from the report of Registrar (Judicial - II) dt. 15.02.2024 that the
parties have entered into compromise. Their statements have been recorded and
both the parties expressed before the Registrar (J-II) that they have entered into
compromise without there being any threat, coercion or undue pressure.
3. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 considering the factum of amicable settlement
between the victim and accused observed as under:-
"Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground
of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing
as compounding of offence. They are different and not
interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of
offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different
from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences,
power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions
contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely
thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the
High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding
or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to
whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power
although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of
indictment.
B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do
illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power
under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or
affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be
said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S.Joshi, Nikhil
Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji this Court has compounded the
non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There
does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under
Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in
exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are
distinct and different although the ultimate consequence may be the
same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment."
4. In the present case, the offence under Sections 324/34 of I.P.C is not
compoundable. However, taking into consideration the aforesaid enunciation of
law by the Apex Court in Gian Singh (supra), it would be in the interest of
justice to permit the parties to compromise the matter.
5 . Thus, taking into consideration the factum of compromise between
the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings pending
against the present applicants deserve to be quashed.
6. Resultantly, this Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C
stands allowed. F.I.R pertaining to Crime No. 562/2018 registered under
Section 324/34 and 323/34, I.P.C registered at Police Station Piplani District
Bhopal as well as judgment and order dated 12.8.2023 passed by Additional
Sessions Judge VII District Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 965/2019 arising out
of Crime/FIR No. 562/2019 under Sections 294, 323, 324 and 506 r/w 34 I.P.C
stands quashed.
7. The appellant is discharged from the aforesaid charges. The bail
bonds and surety bonds, if any, furnished by the applicants shall also stand
discharged.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vivek
