Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra @ Shailu Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 January, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2612
1 CRA-8263-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8263 of 2024
SHAILENDRA @ SHAILU YADAV AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Raunak Yadav - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri C.K. Mishra - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved
by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2024 passed
by 25th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T. No.188/2017, whereby
the appellants have been convicted under Sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC each
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with
default stipulation.
2. Counsel for the appellants contend that in terms of the order passed
by this Court on 16.12.2024, the appellants as well as complainant appeared
before the Registrar (Judicial - II) for the purposes of recording their
statements. Registrar Judicial - II has submitted a report dated 08.01.2025,
which reflects that parties have arrived into settlement without their being
any coercion, threat or undue pressure. Thereafter, report has been produced
before this Court. Thus, it is contended by the counsel that in view of the
compromise entered into between the parties, the appellants be acquitted of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2612
2 CRA-8263-2024
the aforesaid offences. Parties are duly identified by their respective
counsels.
3. It is, thus, contended that in view of the aforesaid, the impugned
judgement of conviction be set aside and the appellants be acquitted. The
counsel has placed reliance in the judgement passed by this Court in Cr.A.
No.4789/2023 [Devi Prasad and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh]
4. Counsel for the State submits that in view of the aforesaid,
conviction under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC, the offence being non-
compoundable, the application so moved by the appellant cannot be
entertained.
5. Having considered the submissions, perusal of the record, report
dated 08.01.2025, reduced into writing by Registrar (Judicial - II) makes it
abundantly clear that parties have entered into amicable settlement and they
have compromised the matter. The settlement has been arrived without there
being any threat, undue pressure or coercion. Parties have duly identified by
their counsels.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and
Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303 considering the factum of amicable settlement
between the victim and accused observed 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2612
3 CRA-8263-2024
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2612
4 CRA-8263-2024
6. In view of the aforesaid, the application (IA No.20356/2024) stands
allowed.
7. Consequently, in view of the compromise entered into between the
parties, this criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 12.07.2024 passed by 25th Additional Sessions Judge in
S.T. No.188/2017, so far as it relates to the appellants, is set aside. The
appellants are acquitted of the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC. The
appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.
8. Let record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of this
judgment for information and necessary action.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Shruti
