Radheshyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 13312 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Radheshyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 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 9 th OF MAY, 2024
                                             CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1536 of 2016

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RADHESHYAM S/O PURALAL DANGI, AGED ABOUT 21
                           Y E A R S , OCCUPATION:  DRIVER      VILLAGE
                           KANWRAKHEDI PS SOYATKALA DIST. AGAR (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                           (SHRI PARITOSH SHRIVASTAVA- ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH PS SUSNER (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT
                           (SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND SHRI
                           ANIRUDH SAXENA - ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)

                                 T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                                  ORDER

The present appeal is filed against the order of conviction and sentenced dated 27.10.2016 passed in ST No.381/2015 convicting the appellant under section 363 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations.

The parties have filed IA No.7280/2024 for permission to compromise under section 320(2) of Cr.P.C and IA No.7281/2024 under section 320 of CrPC for compromise.

By order dated 06.05.2024, the parties were directed to appear before the

Principal Registrar on 09.05.2024 for verification. A report has been submitted that the parties have amicably compromised the matter with their free will and there is no undue influence, pressure, force duress and coercion over the parties.

Learned counsel for the state submits that the offence under section 363 of IPC is non-compoundable.

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."

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.

In the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law and the statement made by the complainant before this Court, and considering that the applicant and the complainant are husband and wife, 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. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges in view of the compromise between the parties. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Accordingly, present appeal stands disposed off. CC as per rules.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Sourabh