Ram Singh And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J

The present appeal is filed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2023 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam in ST No.2400231/2014, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 148, 323/149(2), 307/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI 1year, 6 months, 5 year respectively with fine of Rs.1000, 1000, 6000/- with default stipulations.

The parties have filed application for compounding IA No.5187/2023 and IA No.5186/2023. The said application is signed by the complainants/victims duly verified by the counsel for the complainants.

It is submitted that the appellants and the victims are resident of the same village and they have entered into the compromise on their own free will and coercion. It was a case of free fight and the complainants have also been convicted under section 325/34, 323/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI of 3 years with fine by judgment dated 31.03.203 passed in Sessions Trial No.2400232/2014.

Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence under section 307 IPC is non-compoundable offence under section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the the provisions of section 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C held that the compounding was permitted in a non- compoundable offence. Relevant part of the order of the order reads as under :-

"Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment."

In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab And Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 dated 27.03.2014 after relying on the judgment passed in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable case and quashed the criminal proceedings.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the incident had taken place in the year 2013 and the parties have arrived at a compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion and they have amicably resolved their disputes, I am of the view that no purpose would be served in sending the appellants in jail therefore, the application for compounding is allowed in view of the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of Gian Singh and Narinder Singh (supra). The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. They shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appellants who are on bail, their bail bond stands discharged.

With the aforesaid, the present appeal stands disposed off.