Madhya Pradesh High Court
Badri Prasad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18789
1 CRR-1644-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 24th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1644 of 2006
BADRI PRASAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate with Shri Rohit Sharma - Advocate for the
applicant.
Shri Amit Singh Baghel - G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment
dated 18.09.2006 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara,
District Chhindwara against the judgment dated 16.08.2005 passed by the
Court of JMFC, Amarwada, District Chhindwara in Criminal Case No.1032
of 2000; whereby, the revisionist has been convicted under Sections 323 (2
counts) and 324 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 months RI and R.I for
6 months with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulation.
2. I.A. Nos.4593 of 2020 and 4596 of 2020, applications filed under
Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C.have jointly been filed by the petitioners and
complainant/respondent stating therein that under the terms mentioned in the
application, the matter has been compromised between the parties
voluntarily, without any fear and coercion. Hence, learned counsel for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18789
2 CRR-1644-2006
parties prays for disposal of this revision by acquitting the petitioner/accused
from the charges under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC.
3. In compliance of the order dated 28.01.2025 passed by this Court,
the factum of compromise has been verified by the Registrar (J-II) of this
Court, who has recorded statement of complainant/respondent Ansuiya Bai
and has submitted a report that the parties have arrived at compromise
voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties are
entered into in compromise and they have settled their dispute amicably and
they wants to close the proceedings by way of compromise.
5. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State opposes the
prayer made by the counsel for the applicants and submits that the offence
under Section 324 of the IPC is not compoundable. Therefore, in this stage,
the applicants cannot be acquitted on the basis of compromise.
6. From perusal of judgment dated 16.08.2005, the learned trial Court
has convicted the applicant for the aforesaid offences and at that time the
offence under Section 324 of the IPC was compoundable with the leave of
the Court. By the amendment Act, 25 of 2005 came into force from
31.12.2009 the said offence became not compoundable. In this issue, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Mohd. Abdul Sufan Laskar and Others
Vs. State of Assam reported in 2008 (9) SCC 333 has held that- offence
committed prior to date of inforcement when such offence became non-
compoundable, the said offence allowed to compounded by the parties.
7. In the present case, the incident was took place on 20.09.2000 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:18789
3 CRR-1644-2006
the judgement has been delivered by the trial Court on 16.08.2005 and the
offence under Section 324 of the IPC become non-compoundable, on
31.12.2009 after publishing in Gazette notification. Therefore, in view of the
above cited judgment, the said offence is compoundable under Section
320(2) and 320(5) of the Cr.P.C. as same was committed prior to
inforcement of amendment Act. Offence under Section 324 is compoundable
with the leave of the court. It is found that in the present case the parties have
filed an application for seeking leave to compound the said offence. So the
application filed by the applicant for making the compromise is hereby
allowed and consequent to that applicant is hereby acquitted from the
aforesaid offences. In consequence of acquittal the deposited fine amount
shall be refundable to the applicant which was deposited by him.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed off.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
anu
