Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pannalal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 8325 OF 2024
(Pannalal and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Dated : 29-01-2025
Shri Rakesh Vyas advocate for the appellants.
Shri Rajesh Joshi public prosecutor for the State.
Shri Navendu Joshi, advocate for complainant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present appeal under Section 415 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 18.7.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Badnagar
District Ujjain (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 39/2022, whereby, the
appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 of IPC and
sentenced to undergo 10 years' rigorous imprisonment each with fine of
Rs.1000/- each, under Section 25(1B)(b) of Arms Act and sentenced to 1
year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- each with default
stipulation.
During the course of appeal, it transpired that dispute between the
parties has been amicably settled for which joint application (IA No.
13573 of 2024) under Section 359 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 for compromise in the matter has been moved by the
complainant and appellants with affidavit of complainant.
5/ This Court vide order dated 16/10/2024 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 23/10/2024 and verified the factum
of compromise.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no grievous hurt as
defined under Section 320 of IPC was caused to the injured. Therefore,
indulgence is sought in the matter to quash the conviction recorded
against the appellants.
Learned counsel for complainant, does not dispute about the
compromise entered into between the parties.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab,
(2014) 6 SCC 466 laid down following guiding principles for exercise of
inherent powers-
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving
adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and
quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction
to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished
from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High
Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those
cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter
between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and
with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition
for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such
cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an
opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve
heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed
under special statute like the Prevention ofCorruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be
quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the
offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among
themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal
cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous
and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against
the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court
would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open
to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC
is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence,
which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For
this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury
sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the
body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries
suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this
prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a
strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and
bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the
High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete
settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by
the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony
between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7.While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the
Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the
settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence
and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in
accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is
because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even
the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is
framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage,
the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably,
but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned
above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete
or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument,
normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under
Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a
position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to
whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in
those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the
matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise
between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in
acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court.
Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already
recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a
convict found guilty of such a crime".
In the light of aforesaid proposition of law, the factual scenario of
the case in hand was examined.
The appellants stand convicted for offence punishable under
Section 307/34 of IPC and Section 25(1B)(b) of Arms Act. It was found
proved beyond doubt that accused in furtherance of the common intention
assaulted Deepak with sword, knife and tomahowk (Farsa) with an
intention to kill him. Deepak had sustained multiple incised wounds. On
x-ray examination, fracture on right parietal region of the head of Deepak
was found and the medical expert opined that the injury was life
threatening. The accused have assaulted Deepak infront of his home at
the public place. They acted in a cruel manner. Therefore, in view of the
law laid down in case of Narinder Singh (supra), no case is made out to
invoke inherent jurisdiction to compound the non-compoundable offence
under Section 307 of IPC.
Consequently, IA No. 13573 of 2024 stands dismissed.
List the matter for further hearing in the week commencing 10 th
February 2025.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
BDJ
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
BHUNESH PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
2.5.4.20=3fb5bcda9fd75d95d6c7cdcbd092e
e5a74a94a5534aed3a66d9385cfcfc201e0,
WAR DATT
postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=89FD75A8D0C99E05779A327
974E46BC85102826CE0604B211E4C91102B
4D1269, cn=BHUNESHWAR DATT
Date: 2025.01.30 19:06:55 +05'30'
