Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umar Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 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 2 nd OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5915 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. UMAR KHAN S/O AFSAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 20
YEARS, HOUSE NO. 1, GANDHI NAGAR, BHOPAL
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JISHAN KHAN S/O MUNAVVAR KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 21 YEARS, VILLAGE H.NO. 1 SECTAR N. 5
GANDI NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. AAFAK S/O MUNAVVAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, VILLAGE H.NO. 1 SECTAR N. 5 GANDI
NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHESH @ MUSTAK S/O MUNAVVAR KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, VILLAGE H.NO. 1 SECTAR N. 5
GANDI NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. AARIF KHAN S/O MUNAVVAR KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILLAGE H.NO. 1 SECTAR N. 5
GANDI NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AMIT KHATRI - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. AARAKSHI
KENDRA GANDHINAGAR BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER )
(SHRI R.S. PARIHAR - ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2017 passed by
16th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No.9600102/2014 whereby the
appellants have been convicted under Sections 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 4-4 months under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 2-2 years with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation.
Learned counsel for the parties contend that in terms of order passed by
this Court dated 01.04.2024, the appellants as well as complainant appeared
before the Registrar (Judicial-II) and their statements have been recorded on
24.04.2024 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 that in view of the compromise entered into between
the parties, the appellants be acquitted of the aforesaid offences.
2. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties,
a perusal of record reflects that in terms of order passed by this Court dated
01.04.2024, the appellants as well as complainant appeared before the Registrar
(Judicial-II) and their statements have been recorded on 24.04.2024. It is further
mentioned in the report that the 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. The
parties have been identified by their respective counsel.
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. 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 appellants deserves to be quashed.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the application (IA No.8004/2024) stands
allowed.
6. Consequently, in view of the compromise entered into between the
parties, this criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 28.11.2017 passed by 16 th Additional Sessions Judge
in S.T. No.9600102/2014, so far as it relates to the appellants, is set aside. The
appellants are acquitted of the offence under Sections 323/34 and 325/34 of
IP C . The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand
discharged.
7. Let record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of this
judgment for information and necessary action.
8. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
mn
