Madhya Pradesh High Court
Babu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:688
1 CRA-1140-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1140 of 2022
BABU SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Lakhan Singh Chandel - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri H.S.Rathore - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Shabana Azmi - advocate for the respondent [OBJ].
Reserved On: 05.12.2024
Delivered On: 09.01.2025
JUDGEMENT
This criminal appeal is preferred under section 374 of Cr.P.C. by the
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.01.2022, passed by Tenth
Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, District Indore (M.P.), in S.T. No.1271/2012
whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections
420, 467, 468 of IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo 7 years, 10 years and 7
years R.I. with fine of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively and
usual default stipulations.
2. Prosecution case in nutshell is that on 27.07.2012, complainants Hullas
Jain (P.W.3) and Mahendra Jain (P.W.4) filed a written complaint (Ex.P.11) that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:688
2 CRA-1140-2022
on 18.07.2011 appellant Babusingh pretending himself as the owner of property
ad-measuring 1.681 acre of land situated at Indore bearing survey Nos.278/1/1,
121/2, 305/02 entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant Mahendra
Jain (P.W.4) and in return total amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was paid to appellant by
Mahendra Jain vide two ICICI Bank cheques dated 10.07.2011, 20.07.2011 for
Rs.1,50,000/- & Rs.5,50,000/- respectively and cash of Rs.11,00,000/-, for sale
consideration. Thereafter on the same day appellant appointed complainant Hullas
Jain (P.W.3) as common agent and executed a registered Power of Attorney on the
basis of which Hullas Jain discharged the land bearing survey No.278/1/1 in
favour of Mahendra Jain. It is further alleged that on 29.05.2012 when Mahendra
Jain tried to execute the aforesaid sale deed, it was found the said land was already
sold to one Kannaiyalal via sale deed dated 27.11.2009. It was also revealed that
the same land was also sold to other three persons namely Smt. Chetna W/o.
Dharmendra Gangwal (P.W.14), Dharmendra S/o. Sohanlal and Jitendra S/o.
Sohanlal vide registration dated 12.05.2009. Other survey nos.121/02 and 305/02
were also found to be already sold to Kannaiyalal vide registration dated
26.03.2011. Thus appellant committed forgery with the complainants by selling
the land already sold to some other person and took money from the complainants
to the tune of Rs.18,00,000/-. On the basis of which FIR was registered as crime
No.308/2012 at Police Station Kudel, District Indore against the appellant.
3. During investigation, requisite documents such as forged sale deeds, I.D.
cards, bank account statements etc., were recovered. The statement of witnesses
were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC, 1860. The matter was
committed to the Court of sessions.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:688
3 CRA-1140-2022
4. The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence and material
available on record has convicted the appellant, as stated above in para No. 1 of
this order.
5. Before this Court, both the parties have filed applications for
compounding the offences.
6. The said applications were sent for verification before the Principal
Registrar vide order dated 11.11.2024. In compliance of the said order, the
compromise was verified vide report dated 25.11.2024 in which it is mentioned
that accused/appellant and the complainants have entered into compromise with
mutual consent. There is no dispute remaining between the accused/appellant and
the complainant.
7. Counsel for the appellant submits that so far as sentence is concerned, the
appellant is an old person aged about 72 years and he has already undergone jail
sentence of approximately more than two year and eight months and the incident
had taken place in the year 2011. It is also submitted that there is no public
interest involved in this case and compromise has already been arrived at between
the parties and therefore, while maintaining the conviction, the jail sentence may
be reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount on the
basis of compromise.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/state has opposed the prayer.
However, it is fairly admitted that the parties have compromised the matter
amicably.
9. Nevertheless, the counsel for the appellant has not impugned the merits of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:688
4 CRA-1140-2022
conviction and confined his arguments on sentencing of the appellant on the basis
of compromise application, but still this appellate Court is of the view to examine
the sanctity of conviction. On this aspect, I have gone through the order of the trial
Court. The prosecution case is not only fortified by the witnesses, but also well
supported by documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court. In view of the
whole evidence produced by the prosecution, conclusion of learned trial Court
regarding conviction appears to be on sound reasoning, it does not warrant any
interference.
10. Now coming to the compromise petition with regard to offence under
Section 420 of IPC, the same has already been verified, and the offence is
compounded with the leave of this Court, so also as there is no public interest
involved in the case, the appellant is acquitted from the charges under Section 420
of IPC on the basis of compromise, if any fine amount deposited with regard to
this offence, it would be returned accordingly.
11. Now, the Court is turning to the sentencing part of appellant with regard
to non-compoundable offence under Section 467 & 468 of IPC and considering
the effect of compromise placed by the complainant and appellant. In the case of
Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab And Anr , 2014 (6) SCC 466 relying
on the various judgments, the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-
compoundable case and quashed the criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in para no.21 has observed as under:-
"21. However, we have some other cases decided by this Court
commenting upon the nature of offence under Section 307 of
IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case (supra) , FIR was lodged under
sections 147,148,149,323,307,552 and 506 of the IPC. The
matter was investigated and final report was presented to the
Court under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had even
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:688
5 CRA-1140-2022
framed the charges. At that stage, settlement was arrived at
between parties. The court accepted the settlement and quashed
the proceedings, relying upon the earlier judgment of this Court
in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2012 AIR SCW 5333
wherein the court had observed that inherent powers under
section 482 of the Code are of wide plentitude with no statutory
limitation and the guiding factors are: (1) to secure the needs of
justice, or (2) to prevent abuse of process of the court. While
doing so, commenting upon the offences stated in the FIR, the
court observed:
"Since the offences involved in this case are of a personal
nature and are not offences against the society, we had
enquired with learned counsel appearing for the parties
whether there is any possibility of a settlement. We are
happy to note that due to efforts made by learned counsel,
parties have seen reason and have entered into a
compromise." This Court, thus, treated such offences
including one under section 307, IPC were of a personal
nature and not offences against the society."
12. On this point, the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan versus State of Kerala reported in (2018) 15 SCC
343 is also worth referring in the context of this case as under:-
"10. In series of decisions i.e. Bharath Singh vs. State of M.P. and
Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal vs. State of J & K, (1999) 2
SCC 213, Puttaswamy vs. State of Karnataka and Anr, (2009) 1
SCC 71 1, this Court allowed the parties to compound the offence
even though the offence is a non-compoundable depending on the
facts and circumstances of each case. In some cases this Court
while imposing the fine amount reduced the sentence to the period
already undergone."
11. What emerges from the above is that even if an offence is not
compoundable within the scope of Section 320 of Code of Criminal
Procedure the Court may, in view of the compromise arrive at
between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while
maintaining the conviction."
13. Even this Court in Cr.A. No.268/2016 (Kanha @ Mahesh v/s The State
of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 26.08.2017 as well as in Cr.A. No.561/2010
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:688
6 CRA-1140-2022
(Radhakrishnan & 3 Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on
18.04.2017 and in CRA No.604/2000 (Aaram Singh vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh) decided on 08.08.2019, Sohan Jangu & others vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh reported as 2023 Lawsuit (MP) 392, Devendra Singh vs. State of M.P.
(2023 Lawsuit (MP)781) and Shravan vs. The State of M.P. reported as 2024
Lawsuit (MP) 246 has taken a similar view.
14. In the case of Ramgopal & Anr. vs. State of MP (Criminal Appeal
No.1489/2012, decided on September 29, 2021), the Apex Court held in para12 as
under:-
''12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the
nature of the offence and the fact that parties have
amicably settled their dispute and the victim has
willingly consented to the nullification of criminal
proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise
of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
even if the offences are non compoundable. The High
Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential
effects of the offence beyond the body of an
individual and therefore, adopt a pragmatic approach,
to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished,
does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the
administration of criminal justice system.''
15. On this aspect, the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in
Jagdish Chanana and others vs. State of Haryana and Another [(2008) 15 SCC
704], is also worth to mention here. It is held that in the cases where offences
under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474 r/w 34 of IPC are attracted,
the FIR can be quashed under Section 482 r/w Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The
observations are reproduced here as under:-
"2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th
July 2006 rejecting the prayer for quashing of FIR No.83
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:688
7 CRA-1140-2022
dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat registered
under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474
read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. During the pendency of these proceedings in this Court,
Crl.Misc.Petition No. 42/2008 has been filed putting on
record a compromise deed dated 30th April 2007. The fact
that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted
by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes
which are purely personal in nature and arise out of
commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the
compromise with one of the terms of the compromise
being that proceedings pending in court may be
withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may
be.
4. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the
prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that
the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy
is involved in the transactions that had been entered into
between the parties. To continue with the proceedings,
therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly
allow the appeal and quash FIR No.83 dated 12th March
2005 P.S. City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings."
16. In another case rendered in the case of Anil Jain and Others vs. State of
U.P. and Another [(2015) 15 SCC 707] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside
the judgment of High Court of Judicature of Allahabad and observed as under:
"In view of the settlement reached between the parties, we
allow the prayer and set aside the impugned order dated
11.11.2013 read with order dated 9.12.2013 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 2625 of 2012 and quash the
proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. No. 816 of 2009 (Case Crime
No. 1068 of 2009 and Criminal Case No. 12175 of 2010 -
State versus Anil Jain & others), under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at
P.S. Sector 20, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar (Uttar
Pradesh) and any order passed pursuant to the said
proceedings. The parties will abide by the settlement."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:688
8 CRA-1140-2022
17. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs.
Sadhu Ram Singh & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 350, while considering the exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 and 320 of Cr.P.C., has upheld the quashment
of non- compoundable offences, pursuant to settlement arrived at by the parties,
holding that exercise of judicial restraint vis-à-vis continuance of criminal
proceedings after compromise arrived at between the parties, may amount to abuse
of process of Court and futile exercise. Taking into account the law laid down by
Hon'ble apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, as the compromise between the
parties was arrived at between the parties, thus continuation of the prosecution in
such matters will be a futile exercise, which will serve no purpose. Under such a
situation, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of
process of law and wasteful exercise by the Courts below. More so, offence in
question are not against the society, but merely affect the victim.
18. The aforesaid view of Hon'ble Apex Court has been continuously
followed by this High Court in catena of cases. The aforesaid view is recently
followed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Sajjan Singh Badoria
vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024 Law Suit (MP)85]; Meharban Singh @
Mahendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024 Lawsuit (MP) 496]; Rohit
Gupta vs. State of M.P. [2023 Lawsuit (MP) 893]; Ritesh Kumar vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh [2024 Lawsuit (MP) 17]; Babulal vs. State of M.P. [2023 Lawsuit
(MP) 742].
19. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the facts of the present case are
examined. The offences as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs has been
registered against the appellant by the complainant. The matter is said to be
compromised between the parties and dispute has been amicably settled. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:688
9 CRA-1140-2022
evident that there is no public interest involved in this case. The alleged offences
do not fall within the exception carved out by the apex court in the aforesaid
judgments.
20. Similarly in Tarina Sen vs. Union of India and Anr. 2024 Lawsuit (SC)
881, relying upon its other judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court has ordained as under:
Relying on the earlier judgments of this Court, we have held that
in the matters arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is
basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute, the High Court should exercise its powers under Section
482 CrPC for giving an end to the criminal proceedings. We have held
that the possibility of conviction in such cases is remote and bleak and
as such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would put the
accused to great oppression and prejudice.
21. As the offence under Section 467 & 468 of IPC are not compoundable
under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not possible to
pass the order of acquittal on the basis of compromise but, it is by now well settled
that such a compromise can be taken into account for reduction of sentence. The
appellant and the complainant are living in the same society, they are residing
happily since last so many years, they want to live with peace, and no public
interest is involved in this case, therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence
of imprisonment awarded against the appellant under Sections 467 & 468 of IPC
may be reduced to the period already undergone.
22. In view of the aforesaid this Court is of the view that while maintaining
the conviction under Section 467 & 468 of IPC, the jail sentence under these
offences is reduced to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount
for offence under Section 467 of IPC, from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.75,000/-and for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:688
10 CRA-1140-2022
Section 468 of IPC, from Rs.25,000/- to 50,000/- which will be deposited by the
appellant within a period of two months from today.
23.The appellant is in jail. The bail bond of the appellant shall be discharged
after depositing the fine amount.
24. If the appellant fails to deposit the fine amount, he will suffer 02 months
of simple imprisonment in default and thereafter completion of the same, he shall
be released from jail, if not required in any other case.
25. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding disposal of the seized
property stands affirmed.
26. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary
compliance.
27. Pending application, if any shall be closed.
28. With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
sumathi
