Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Goswami vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4439 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJESH GOSWAMI @ GABBU MAHARAJ S/O
SHYAMPURI GOSWAMI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O 9 NEHRU NAGAR,
DEWAS DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHAKHER PATEL S/O TEJRAM, AGED ABOUT 48
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE R/O 121
NEHRU NAGAR DEWAS DIST. DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI SHUBHAM NARVARE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
PALSUD, DISTRICT BARWANI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RITESH S/O VIJAY SHANKAR BIJOLIYA, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, CHANAKYAPURI, DEWAS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - P.L FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE.
SHRI ABHISHEK CHOGHANIYA - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 ALONGWITH RESPONDENT NO.2 PRESENT IN PERSON)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.
2. The present appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C being
aggrieved by the order dated 22/3/2024 passed in S.T No.10/2019 by First
Additional Session Judge, Badwah District Khargone whereby the appellant
No.1 has been convicted under Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo R.I for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine
he shall undergo further R.I of one month and also convicted him under Section
323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 months and fine of Rs.500/-
and in default of payment of fine shall undergo further R.I for 15 days. The
appellant No.2 has been convicted under Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced
to undergo R.I for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of
fine he shall undergo further R.I of one month and also convicted him under
Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 months and fine of
Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine shall undergo further R.I for 15 days.
3. As per prosecution story on 20/10/2018 complainant with accused and
other friends went for goddess Durga visarjan(immersion of idol) ceremony at
Navghatkhedi. At about 6:00 PM, during worship the children whom they took
with them, started fighting on which complainant explained to them that they
should not fight. Meanwhile accused Rajeshpuri(appellant No.1) came with
appellant No.2/Shakhar and started fighting with the complainant and the
appellant No.1 attacked the complainant with sword which was in the hand of
the idol of goddess Durga which hit complainant's elbow and appellant
No.2/Shakher attacked the complainant with knife and caused injury on right
hand finger. Thereafter the complainant lodged an FIR. The FIR was lodged by
P.S - Badwah District Khargone under Section 326, 324, 323, 294, 506, 34 of
IPC and under Section 25(B) of Arms Act. However, the appellants were
convicted under Section 326/34 and 323/34 of IPC and were sentenced as
mentioned above.
4. A no objection was filed before the Trial Court also by the
complainant on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the
parties. Today the complainant is present in the Court alongwith his counsel.
On query he stated that the accused persons are his friends and after the
registration of case they have maintained good relations with him and with the
advice of family members and other persons of the locality he does not want
conviction of the appellants. He has filed affidavit before this Court in this
regard. The complainant Ritesh Kahar has been identified by his counsel.
5. Counsel for the State submits that the offences for which the
appellants have been convicted are non compoundable offences and it is alleged
that appellant No.1 had caused injury on elbow of the complainant with the help
of sword whereas the appellant No.2 is alleged to have caused injury on the
finger with the help of knife.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and to appreciate the
aforesaid submissions, it is apposite to refer the judgments in regard to
compounding in non compoundable offences.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the the provisions of
section 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C held that the compounding was permitted in
a non-compoundable offence. Relevant part of the order of the order reads 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."
8. In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs.
State of Punjab And Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 dated
27.03.2014 after relying on the judgment passed in the case of Gian Singh
(supra), the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable
case and quashed the criminal proceedings.
9. In the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law and the statement made
by the complaint before this Court, this Court is of the view that no purpose
would be served in keeping the appeal pending as the parties have amicably
settled the matter and they are friends and belong to same locality. Therefore, in
view of the aforesaid, the order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The
appellants are acquitted of the charges in view of the compromise between the
parties. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
10. Accordingly, present appeal stands disposed off.
CC as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
