Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Sen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 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 27 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 16007 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. RAVI SEN S/O RAMESH SEN, AGED ABOUT 22
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOR R/O LAKHANWAS
THANA MALAWAR DISTT.RAJGARH (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SUNIL S/O RAMESH SEN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR LAKHANVAS THANA
MALAWAR, DIST. RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI DHARMENDRA KEHARWAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION MALAWAR, DIST.
RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA - PP FOR STATE AND SHRI KSHITIJ VYAS -
ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
T h e present appeal u/S.374 of Cr.P.C is filed against the order of
conviction and sentence dated 14.12.2023 passed in ST No.332/2022 whereby
the appellants have been convicted u/S.307/34 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo RI for five years with fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation.
2. Counsel for appellants and the respondent No.2 have filed
applications for compromise IA No.7000/2024 and 6998/2024. The aforesaid
applications were sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of this
court. The Principal Registrar had submitted verification report and stated that
the parties have compromised the matter voluntarily without any threat,
inducement or coercion.
3. Counsel for State submits that the offence u/S.307/34 of IPC is non
compoundable, therefore, the offence cannot be compounded under section
320 of the Cr.P.C.
4. 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."
5. 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.
6 . In the light of the judgments, the facts of the present case are
examined. The appellants and the complainant are cousins. They have
amicably resolved their dispute between them. No purpose would be served in
keeping the appeal pending and convicting the appellant. In view of the
compromise, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges.
It is stated that the appellant No.1 is in jail and the appellant No.2 is on bail. In
view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the appellant No.1 will be released from
jail forthwith if not required in any other criminal case. The bail bonds of the
appellant No.2 shall be discharged.
7. With the aforesaid, present appeal stands allowed and disposed
off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
