Pullu Ahirwar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to compound the case pending before the trial Court i.e. Linked Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jatara, Distt. Tikamgarh in Sessions Trial No.43/2014.

The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that a criminal case registered as Sessions Trial No.43/2014 is pending against respondents No.2 to 4 before the trial Court arising out of Crime No.242/2013 registered at Police Station Lidhora for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 325 read with Section 34, 307 read with Section 34 of of IPC. During pendency of that trial, applicant and respondents No.2 to 4 filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court vide order dated 04/05/2019 allowed the application and discharged respondents No.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 325/34 of IPC, however, did not compound the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC since this offence is non-compoundable. The applicant has filed this petition for compounding the offence under Section 307/34 of IPC and to acquit respondents No.2 to 4 of the charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/State, opposes the aforesaid prayer made by the applicant and submits that since the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is not compoundable, therefore, the trial Court cannot be permitted to compound that offence against the law. It is also submitted by him that this petition has been filed by the applicant on the wrong grounds, thus, prays for dismissal of the petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Amit Rod and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, passed in Criminal Mins. Application No.1581/2018 with Compounding Application No.10926/2018.

After perusal of order dated 04/05/2019, it is apparent that learned trial Court, in the order, has categorically stated that since the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is not compoundable, hence, respondents No.2 to 4 cannot be acquitted of that charge. During trial the statement of applicant-Pullu Ahirwar (PW-2) has already been recorded and the statement of other witnesses have also been recorded in the trial Court. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that the trial is in progress and statement of the applicant and other witness have been recorded.

In the case of Amit Rod and others (supra), learned Single Bench of Uttarakhand High Court referred the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 9 SCC 677, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gold Quest International Private Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (2014) 15 SCC 235 and opined that when the Courts are settling the disputes in relation of the offences which are of serious nature, for example, punishable under Sections 302, 306, 307, 376 of IPC and other such sexual offences, the Court will have to consider to attract its inherent powers depending upon the material and nature of the offence which is under consideration, to be settled in terms of the compromise. Meaning thereby, if the facts warrant settlement, then Court can settle the dispute amongst the parties and acquit the accused of the charge or quash the criminal proceeding.

However, in the present case, statement of complainant has already been recorded but later on complainant(victim) has filed this petition for compounding the offence, this Court is of the view that if had a dispute settled between the parties, application for compounding the offences should have been filed at earlier stage of trial. When statement of applicant/complainant, who is victim before the trial Court, has been recorded and he stated everything against respondents No.2 to 4, then there may be a chance of overcome upon the victim by using extra force which is resulting of filing of this petition.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Kalyan Singh and others, AIR 2019 SC 312 in para-3.1 held as under :

"3.1 It is required to be noted that the original Accused was facing the criminal proceedings under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is not in dispute that as per Section 20 of the Cr.PC offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC are non-compoundable. It is also required to be noted that the allegations in the complaint for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC are, as such, very serious. It is alleged that the accused fired twice on the complainant by a countrymade pistol. From the material on record, it appears that one of the accused persons was reported to be a hardcore criminal having criminal antecedents. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the accused was facing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC and that the offences under these sections are not non-compoundable offences and, looking to the serious allegations against the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC solely on the ground that the original Complainant and the accused have settled the dispute. At this stage, the decision of this Court in the case of Gulab Das and Ors. V. State of M.P. (2011) 12 SCALE 625 (AIR 2012 SC 888) is required to be referred to. In the said decision, this Court has specifically observed and held that, despite any settlement between the Complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other, the criminal proceedings for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be quashed, as the offence under Section 307 is a non-compoundable offence. Under the circumstance, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the original Accused for the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside."

In view of aforesaid discussions and the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Singh and others, this Court is not inclined to invoke the inherent powers for quashing of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC and acquit respondents No.2 to 4 of the charge.

In view of forgoing discussions, this petition is devoid of any substance and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.