Mohan @ Manohar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon''ble Shri Justice M.C. Garg

This application has been filed by the complainant at whose instance a case was registered vide crime no. 195/2010 against appellant Mohan @ Manohar, S/o Kedarsingh Dangi under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 341 of IPC. After the case was referred to Sessions and was registered as S.T. No. 236/2010, the appellant Mohan was convicted for offence under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months R.I. and one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months R.I. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid judgment. During the pendency of the appeal parties have entered into a settlement. According to the complainant, who has moved this application, on an intervention of the elderly person of the society, parties resolved their differences and it has been stated that there is no ill will between them and as such it is prayed that in the interest of justice the compromise may be taken on record.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the application moved by the complainant along with the compromise deed and the affidavit in support thereof and submits that in view of the aforesaid, the present proceedings should be quashed. He has also relied upon a judgment delivered by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika and Another, . In this case in similar circumstances, taking note of the provisions u/s 320 Cr.P.C., the Apex Court made relevant observation in paragraph 13 which is reproduced for the sake of reference hereunder:-

It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable u/s 320 IPC is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. That power can in our opinion be exercised in cases where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial Court or in appeal on one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a Court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable u/s 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in cases where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only in cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power u/s 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of an appellate court while dealing with a petition u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked.

In the present case, it is not a civil dispute where settlement has taken place. Parties virtually wants reduction of sentence. Infact they want to make offence which is not compoundable to compoundable u/s 320 Cr.P.C. Another judgment relied by the appellant, where considering the settlement/compromise reached between the parties, Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Gulab Das and Others Vs. State of M.P., reduced the sentence awarded to the appellant. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment is relevant which is reproduced hereunder:-

Having said that we are of the view that the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the appellants. That is precisely the approach which this Court has adopted in the cases referred to above. Even when the prayer for composition has been declined this Court has in the two cases mentioned above taken the fact of settlement between the parties into consideration while dealing with the question of sentence. Apart from the fact that a settlement has taken place between the parties, there are few other circumstances that persuade us to interfere on the question of sentence awarded to the appellants. The incident in question had taken place in the year 1994. The parties are related to each other. Both Appellant nos. 2 and 3 were at the time of the incident in their twenties. It is also noteworthy that the incident had led to registration of a cross case against the complainant party in which the trial Court has already convicted Veeraji and others for offences punishable under Sections 325/ 34 and 323 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 300/- and imprisonment of six months u/s 323 IPC. We are told that the parties having settled the matter, will approach the High Court for an appropriate order in the appeal pending before it. More so, the appellants have already served substantial part of the sentence awarded to them.

In the totality of the circumstances we are of the view that the settlement arrived at between the parties is a sensible step that will benefit the parties, give quietus to the controversy and rehabilitate and normalise the relationship between them.

In the light of the aforesaid two judgments, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant who is in custody for one year and nine months be granted benefit of reduction of sentence only.

Accordingly, in the light of the judgment as cited by the appellant, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.

With this modification, the appeal is disposed of. C.C. as per rules.