Kamalakar singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28.01.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.86/2013. The trial Court found the appellants guilty for commission of offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, Section 466 read with Section 120-B, Section 468 read with Section 120-B and Section 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence of RI seven years and fine of Rs.15,000/- each. The trial Court further ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

Allegation against the appellants is that they had manufactured a forged rin-pustika of Goura Bai in regard to her land, area 0.06 hectare, situate at Khasra No.163/6, Patwari Halqa No.23, District Mandla and the aforesaid rinpustika was used as original.

The complainant filed a private complaint and pleaded that after death of her husband, the land, area 0.06 hectare, of Khasra No. 163/6, was transferred in revenue record in her name. She was in possession on the land. In the year 2009, when the complainant started construction on the land, Mr. Rajkumar/appellant No.1 told her that the land was recorded in his name in the year of 1996-97 and he had shown rin-pustika to the complainant. Then, the complainant inquired the matter and found that with the help of Chandan Lal and Ramgopal Marco, appellant No.1/Rajkumar prepared a forged rin-pustika and had got transferred the land of the ownership of the complainant in his name. A report was lodged at the police station, but, no action was taken.

The trial Court, after trial, found the charges proved and awarded sentence to the appellants vide judgment dated 28.01.2016. The appellants are in jail since the date of judgment i.e. 28.01.2016.

During pendency of this appeal, the appellants and the complainant entered into a compromise. They also filed applications that compromise has been entered between them. This Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to record the compromise vide order dated 06.03.2017. The Registrar (Judicial-II) recorded following compromise: "The matter pertains to verification of compromise in Cr.A. No.328/2016,

In compliance of order dated 06.03.2017 of the Hon''ble Court, case is received for verification of compromise.

Appellant/Accused No.1:- Rajkumar, S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad Mishra.

Appellant/Accused No.2:- Pradeep, S/o Shri Ganesh Prasad Mishra.

Both are residents of Village Bharda, P.S. Bichhiya, District Mandla, M.P.

Kind attention is invited to the fact that Appellant/Accused No.1 & 2 are in jail as mentioned in petition and are not present today.

Complainant No.1:- Goura Bai W/o Late Hari Prasad Mishra.

Complainant No.2:- Vipin Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Hari Prasad Mishra.

Both are residents of Village Barda, Bichhiya, District Mandla, M.P.

Complainants are present in persons before me.

Complainants are identified by Shri Shahnawaaz Khan Advocate (Enrl. No.1797/2008).

Complainants have submitted the copy of the Aadhar Card in support of their identification.

As per the record, this Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 28.01.2016 in Sessions Case no. 86/2013 passed by IInd ASJ Mandla by which the Appellant/Accused persons have been convicted under Section 420, 466, 468, 471 & 120 B of I.P.C.

As per the order dated 28.01.2016 of IInd ASJ Mandla District Mandla Appellant/Accused persons have been convicted in accordance with para No.21 of the judgement.

The counsel for the Appellant/Accused persons and Complainant have jointly filed applications i.e. I.A. No.2592/2017 u/s 320(5) and i.e. I.A. No.2593/2017 for compromise.

Kind attention is invited to the fact that offences u/s 466, 468, 471 & 120 B of IPC are non compoundable.

I personally posed questions to complainants to verify the voluntariness of the proposed compromise. Complainants have expressed that they voluntarily entered into a compromise with the Appellant/ Accused persons with a view to improve their mutual relationships and to foster tranquility and peace between them and so to the society. I satisfied myself about the fact that complainants did not appear to be under any threat, inducement, force or pressure in entering into a compromise as proposed. The complainants appeared before me and submitted that they have amicably resolved the dispute between themselves and now their matter stands fully and finally settled. Therefore, the compromise between Appellant/Accused persons and Complainants stands verified.

Hence, the matter is placed before the Hon''ble Court."

As per the finding of the Registrar (Judicial-II), the compromise has been entered between the parties without any undue influence, inducement, force or pressure.

The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has quashed criminal proceedings against the accused persons on the basis of compromise. The Apex Court has held as under: "58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor......"

The Apex Court further in the case of Narinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466 has quashed the criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise. The Court has held as under: "17. We would like to expand this principle in some more detail. We find, in practice and in reality, after recording the conviction and while awarding the sentence/punishment the Court is generally governed by any or all or combination of the aforesaid factors. Sometimes, it is the deterrence theory which prevails in the minds of the Court, particularly in those cases where the crimes committed are heinous in nature or depicts depravity, or lack morality. At times it is to satisfy the element of "emotion" in law and retribution/vengeance becomes the guiding factor. In any case, it cannot be denied that the purpose of punishment by law is deterrence, constrained by considerations of justice. What, then, is the role of mercy, forgiveness and compassion in law? These are by no means comfortable questions and even the answers may not be comforting. There may be certain cases which are too obvious namely cases involving heinous crime with element of criminality against the society and not parties inter-se. In such cases, the deterrence as purpose of punishment becomes paramount and even if the victim or his relatives have shown the virtue and gentility, agreeing to forgive the culprit, compassion of that private party would not move the court in accepting the same as larger and more important public policy of showing the iron hand of law to the wrongdoers, to reduce the commission of such offences, is more important. Cases of murder, rape, or other sexual offences etc. would clearly fall in this category. After all, justice requires long term vision. On the other hand, there may be, offences falling in the category where "correctional" objective of criminal law would have to be given more weightage in contrast with "deterrence" philosophy. Punishment, whatever else may be, must be fair and conducive to good rather than further evil. If in a particular case the Court is of the opinion that the settlement between the parties would lead to more good; better relations between them; would prevent further occurrence of such encounters between the parties, it may hold settlement to be on a better pedestal. It is a delicate balance between the two inflicting interests which is to be achieved by the Court after examining all these parameters and then deciding as to which course of action it should take in a particular case.

* * * *

Thus, we find that in certain circumstances, this Court has approved the quashing of proceedings under section 307,IPC whereas in some other cases, it is held that as the offence is of serious nature such proceedings cannot be quashed. Though in each of the aforesaid cases the view taken by this Court may be justified on its own facts, at the same time this Court owes an explanation as to why two different approaches are adopted in various cases. The law declared by this Court in the form of judgments becomes binding precedent for the High Courts and the subordinate courts, to follow under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Stare Decisis is the fundamental principle of judicial decision making which requires ?certainty? too in law so that in a given set of facts the course of action which law shall take is discernable and predictable. Unless that is achieved, the very doctrine of stare decisis will lose its significance. The related objective of the doctrine of stare decisis is to put a curb on the personal preferences and priors of individual Judges. In a way, it achieves equality of treatment as well, inasmuch as two different persons faced with similar circumstances would be given identical treatment at the hands of law. It has, therefore, support from the human sense of justice as well. The force of precedent in the law is heightened, in the words of Karl Llewellyn, by "that curious, almost universal sense of justice which urges that all men are to be treated alike in like circumstances."

In view of the above judgments, learned Senior Counsel does not press the appeal on merits and contended that the sentence awarded by the trial Court be modified as already undergone.

Looking to the compromise entered between the parties and in view of the aforementioned judgments of the Apex Court, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to reduce the sentence awarded by the trial Court as already undergone because no minimum sentence has been prescribed in the IPC for commission of aforesaid offences. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of the appellants for commission of offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, Section 466 read with Section 120-B, Section 468 read with Section 120-B and Section 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code is hereby upheld, however, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is modified to the extent of already undergone. The fine amount has already been deposited by the appellants with the Court. Hence, the appellants be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case.