Umar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1204 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Umar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2026

Author: Avanindra Kumar Singh

Bench: Avanindra Kumar Singh

                                                            1                           CRA-9565-2025
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR

                                                    CRA No. 9565 of 2025
                                               (UMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )



                            Dated : 06-02-2026

Shri Manish Datt - Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Datt

- Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Mukesh Shukla - Government Advocate for the State of M.P. Shri Jil Sharma - Advocate for the complainant through V.C. Shri Vaibhav Dharpure - Advocate for the complainant present in the court.

Heard on the question of admission.

The appeal is admitted for final hearing.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that compromise has taken place between the parties.

This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 19th September 2025 passed by 21st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No.497

of 2016 (State of M.P. Vs. Mohd. Uber and others). Chandu Sharma has expired during trial.

Vide Para -115 of the judgment learned trial court has acquitted the accused Ijhar, Mohd. Uber and Rishab Soni have been acquitted from the charge under Section 419/120-B, 420/120-B, 467/120-B, 468/120-B and Section 471/120-B of IPC.

2 CRA-9565-2025 The present appellant- Umar has been convicted and sentenced as below :-

                            CONVICTION          SENTENCE
                            SECTION ACT         IMPROSONMENT          FINE IF      IMPOSITION IN
                                                                      DEPOSITED    LIEU OF FINE
                                                                      DETAILS
                            Section 419 /120-   R.I. for 1 year       -            Additional R.I.
                            B IPC (wrongly                                         for three months.
                            mentioned in
                            judgment as 419
                            r/w Section 120.
                            Section 420 r/w     R.I. for 3 years      Rs.5000/-    Additional R.I.
                            Section 120-B of                                       for three months.
                            IPC
                            Section 467 r/w     R.I. for 5 years      Rs.5000/-    Additional R.I.
                            Section 120-B of                                       for 6 months.
                            IPC
                            Section 468 r/w     R.I. for 3 years      Rs.3000/-    Additional R.I.
                            Section 120-B of                                       for three months.
                            IPC
                            Section 471 r/w     R.I. for 5 years      Rs.3000/-    Additional R.I.
                            Section 120-B of                                       for three months.
                            IPC

It is seen from Para-127 of the judgment that the accused was taken in custody but Akhtar was absent. Arrest warrant was against him.

It is also seen that Umar remained in Police custody from 10.4.2016 to 10.6.2016.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that they have no information whether any appeal has been filed by Akhtar or not.

It is submitted that compromise has taken place between the appellant and Ajay Singh Parmar outside the court and they are ready

3 CRA-9565-2025

to get recorded their statements from Indore.

Therefore at their request learned learned Registrar (J) record the compromise statements and submit the report regarding compromise between the appellant - Umar and Ajay Singh Parmar at 4 PM.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

bks

LATER ON 6.2.2026.

Shri Manish Datt - Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Datt

- Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Mukesh Shukla - Government Advocate for the State of M.P. Shri Jil Sharma - Advocate for the complainant through V.C. Shri Vaibhav Dharpure - Advocate for the complainant present in the court.

In continuation of the order dated 6.2.2026 the compromise

4 CRA-9565-2025 statements have been recorded by learned Registrar (J-II) of the appellant - Umar appearing through V.C. from the jail and the complainant Ajay Singh Parmar appearing through V.C. who was identified by counsel Shri Jil Sharma, Adv. who stated that Ajay Singh Parmar- complainant has compromised the matter with the accused.

Learned Registrar (J-II) has opined that the compromise seems to be genuine.

Statements of complainant- Ajay Singh Parmar have been recorded.

Out of the offence for which appellant-Umar has been convicted only Section 419 and 420 of IPC can be compounded but the charges have been framed alongwith Section 120-B of IPC. Section 120-B of IPC is not compoundable.

In the case of Joginder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another passed in Criminal Misc. No.20862 of 2005 vide order dated 10th of March 2006, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that under Section 320 Cr.P.C. when charges were against the accused under Section 420 r/w Section 120-B of IPC on the basis of compromise between the complainant and the accused request for compounding the offence under Section 120-B of IPC can be allowed in the same manner as under Section 420 of IPC under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and Section 120- B of IPC i.e. criminal conspiracy involves, element of abetment.

Relevent Paragraph no. 3 and 4 are reproduced as under :-

5 CRA-9565-2025

(3) Section 320 Cr. P.C. deals with compounding of offences. Offences mentioned in the table under sub-section (1) are compoundable as such. Under sub-section (2) are the offences, which can be compounded with the permission of the Court. Offence u/s 420 IPC falls in this category. Sub-section (3) says that when any offence is compoundable under this section, the abetment of such offence may be compoundable in like manner. The relevant portion of Section 320 Cr. P.C. reads as under :

"320. Compounding of offences :

(1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table: XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (2) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned ip the third column of that table :

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (3) When any offence is compoundable under this section, the abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence (when such attempt is itself an offence) may be compounded in like manner".

Section 120-B IPC prescribes punishment for criminal conspiracy. Whosoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence is to be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. In N.M.M.Y. M om in versus State o f M aharashtra, (1) the Court while drawing distinction between S. 34 IPC and S. 109 IPC, went on to consider the elements of criminal conspiracy. It was noticed that there was close association of conspiracy with incitement and abetment although the substantive offence of criminal conspiracy was somewhat wider in amplitude than abetment by conspiracy as contemplated by S. 107 IPC.

(4) Once it is clear that criminal conspiracy involves the

6 CRA-9565-2025 element of abetment, the offence u/s 120-B IPC is also compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. in the same manner as offence u/s 420 IPC. Such being the position,'offence under Section 420 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court under Section 320 (2) Cr. P.C. Similarly, offence under Section 120-B IPC in relation to the offence under Section 420 IPC is also compoundable in the similar manner.

Same is the view expressed in the case of Jitender Rana Vs. State of Delhi (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2007 Cr.L.J.1641 in which Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that when the substantive offence itself is compoundable, Section 120-b of IPC read with it or Section 34 of IPC read with it, shall be compoundable.

In the case of Upendra Singh, Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar and another passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.47738 of 2012 order dated 04.05.2015, Hon'ble Patna High Court has held that when the matter was compromised between the parties and found that basically dispute was of purely civil nature and not involving public policy, Hon'ble Patna High Court quashed the charges under Section 120-B of IPC when other charges under Section 406, 420 and IPC were already compounded.

In the case of Mohammad Sajid Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Misc. Criminal Case No.3903 of 2023 order dated 7th February 2023

when the compromise has taken place between the parties and the fact that it was a case of monetary transaction and that did not affect the

7 CRA-9565-2025 society as the same is a private in nature, the petition was allowed and charges under Sections 120-B, 386, 420, 467, 468 and Section 471 of IPC in S.T. No.590 of 2021 were quashed.

Therefore I.A. No.3023/2026 for permission to compounding the offence is allowed. The the appellant - Umar is acquitted of the charges under Section 419/120-B, 420/120-B of IPC. Charges under Section 467 r/w Section 120-B, 468/120-B, 471/120-B are non - compoundable. Therefore this appeal shall continue regarding remaining charges/conviction.

Also heard on I.A. No.23859 of 2025 first application under Section 430 of B.N.S.S. 2023/ under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail.

The appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated in the previous order sheet dated 6.2.2026.

The appellant has remained in Police and judicial custody from 10.4.2016 to 10.6.2016. The offence pertains to cheating by impersonation and regarding immoveable property. Since the matter has been compromised between the appellant- accused and the complainant, regarding conviction under Section 419/120-B, 420/120-B of IPC, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated, therefore he should be released on bail.

Learned Government Advocate for the State opposes the

8 CRA-9565-2025 suspension of sentence.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the custody period and the sentence awarded by the trial court and looking to the fact that final disposal of this appeal will take long time, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I.A. No.23859 of 2025 is allowed.

It is directed that subject of the fine amount in the trial court by the applicant and on his furnishing two personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and a solvent surety of Rs.1 lac to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on the dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court, the execution of remaining part of jail sentence imposed upon appellant shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail till final disposal of the appeal.

List before the Roster Bench after one week. C c as per rules.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

bks