Gulabsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 4828 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gulabsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2025

Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

                                                              1                               CRA-8988-2024
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT INDORE
                                                      CRA No. 8988 of 2024

(GULABSINGH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )

Dated : 27-02-2025 Shri Shadab Khan advocate for the appellant.

Shri Mukesh Rav Jadhav advocate for the objector.

Shri Madhusudan Yadav public prosecutor for State.

Heard on the question of admission

Record of the trial Court has been received.

Being arguable, the appeal is admitted for final hearing.

This appeal under Section 14-A of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is filed assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25/07/2024 passed in Special Case No.91/2016 by learned Special Judge, (under SC & ST Act), Ratlam whereby the appellants/accused were convicted for the offence punishable under sections 341 of IPC (7 counts) r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act; Section 147 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act; Section 325 of IPC read with Section 149 r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act; Section 323 (7 counts) of IPC read with section 149 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act; Section 506 (Part-II) (7 counts) of IPC, r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act; Section 3(1)(S) (7 counts) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo 1-1 year's RI, 1-1 year's RI, 5-5 year's RI, 1-1 years RI, 2-2 years RI and 6-6 months RI with fine of Rs. 200-200, Rs. 500- 500/-, Rs. 2000-2000/-, Rs. 1000-1000/- and Rs. 2000-2000/-, and Rs. 500- 500/- respectively with default stipulation.

2 CRA-8988-2024 During the course of appeal, it transpired that dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, for which application (IA No. 20340 of 2024) under Section 320 of Cr.P.C./359 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for compromise in the matter has been moved by the complainants/injured Mehtabai, Dallubai, Nagu, Bhanwar Singh, Dalu @ Lalu and Dhulji with affidavit of complainant/victim No.1. This Court vide order dated 15/1/2025 had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for recording their statements and for verification of factum of compromise. The Principal Registrar has submitted his report on 20/1/2025 and verified the factum of compromise.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the cases of Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana & another (AIR 2008 SC 1968), Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2008 SC 1969), Shiji Vs. Radhika & Another (2011) 10 SCC 705, and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Anita Maria Dias and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 290 , Supreme Court has laid down that even in non-compoundable cases, criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of compromise, so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material cases. The Supreme Court in case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 Cri.L.J. 4942 laid down following guiding principles invoking the inherent powers:-

"13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the

3 CRA-8988-2024 final Court, is sine-qua-non to involve the superior court's plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollowhearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).

19. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the aforestated principles, as well as having meditated on the application for compromise, we are inclined to invoke the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant Criminal proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete justice between the parties before us. We say so for the reasons that:

Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST is to deter caste-based insults and intimidations when they are used with the intention of demeaning a victim on account of he/she belonging to the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case, the record manifests that there was an undeniable preexisting civil dispute between the parties. The case of the Appellant, from the very beginning, has been that the alleged abuses were uttered solely on account of frustration and anger over the pending dispute. Thus, the genesis of the deprecated incident was the aforestated civil/property dispute. Considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that it would not be incorrect to categorise the occurrence as one being overarchingly private in nature, having only subtle undertones of criminality, even though the provisions of a special statute have been attracted in the present case.

Secondly, the offence in question, for which the Appellant has been convicted, does not appear to exhibit his mental depravity. The aim of the SC/ST Act is to protect members of the downtrodden classes from atrocious acts of the upper strata of the society. It appears to us that although the Appellant may not belong to the same caste as the Complainant, he too belongs to the relatively weaker/backward section of the society and is certainly not in any better economic or social position when compared to the victim. Despite the rampant prevalence of segregation in Indian villages whereby members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community are forced to restrict their quartes only to certain areas, it is seen that in the present case, the Appellant and the Complainant lived in adjoining houses. Therefore, keeping in mind the socioeconomic status of the Appellant, we are of the opinion that the overriding objective of the SC/ST Act would not be overwhelmed if the present proceedings are quashed.

Thirdly, the incident occurred way back in the year 1994. Nothing on record indicates that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident had transpired between the parties. The State Counsel has also not brought to our attention any other occurrence that would lead us to believe that the Appellant is either a repeat offender or is unremorseful about what transpired.

Fourthly, the Complainant has, on her own free will, without any compulsion, entered into a compromise and wishes to drop the present

4 CRA-8988-2024 criminal proceedings against the accused.

Fifthly, given the nature of the offence, it is immaterial that the trial against the Appellant had been concluded.

Sixthly, the Appellant and the Complainant parties are residents of the same village and live in very close proximity to each other. We have no reason to doubt that the parties themselves have voluntarily settled their differences. Therefore, in order to avoid the revival of healed wounds, and to advance peace and harmony, it will be prudent to effectuate the present settlement."

Both the parties are resident of same village. Considering the nature of dispute and the socio-economic circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that parties deserve to be permitted to settle their dispute. The accused has not taken any undue advantage or acted against the law before or after the alleged incident. No criminal antecedent or past conviction is alleged against the appellants. There is nothing on record to suggest that the compromise would have harmful effect on social and moral fabric of the society. It has no bearing on the public order. The parties at their own volition, without any coercion or compulsion, wish to accord a quietus to the past incident. Therefore, amicable settlement of the criminal proceeding would advance peace and harmony between both the parties and their respective families. (Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466; Ram Gopal and Another Vs. State of M.P. order dated 29.09.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.1489 of 2012 relied upon.) In view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court allows I.A. No. 20239/2024 and in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.7.2024 passed in Special Case No. 91/2016 is set aside. The appellants - Gulabsingh, Chandarsingh @ Chandar Gurjar, Bherulal @ Bheru,

5 CRA-8988-2024 Madhosingh @ Madhu, Nagu @ Nagusingh, Bharat @ Bharatsingh and Kalu are acquitted of the charge for offence punishable under Sections 341 of IPC (7 counts) r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act; Section 147 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act; Section 325 of IPC read with Section 149 r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act; Section 323 (7 counts) of IPC read with section 149 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act; Section 506 (Part-II) (7 counts) of IPC, r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act .

Further perusal of the record shows that complainant Bablu has not filed any compromise application with the appellants/convicts. Therefore, this appeal shall remain pending with regard to the conviction for offence punishable under Sections 341 of IPC (7 counts) r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Section 147 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act; Section 325 read with Section 149 r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act; Section 323 (7 counts) IPC read with section 149 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act; Section 506 (Part-II), r/w Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act; Section 3(1)(S) of SC/ST Act in reference to injured Bablu.

List this matter on 5.3.2025 for hearing on application for suspension of sentence.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE

BDJ