Ramnaresh and Anothers vs State of M.P.

Brij Kishore Dubey, J.—Vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.02.2012 passed by the learned JMFC, Mehgaon, District Bhind in Criminal Case No. 132/2006 whereby the petitioners herein/accused, Ramnaresh and Ramkuwar have been convicted under Sections 324 & 323/ 34 of IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer 06 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and 03 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, respectively. Being aggrieved thereof, an appeal was preferred by the accused. The Appellate Court vide the judgment dated 22.07.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 106/2012 affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence u/s 323/ 34 of IPC, however, reduced the sentence from 06 months to 03 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- for the offence u/s 324 of IPC, hence, this Criminal Revision is preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged incident was occurred on 19.03.2006 in which the complainant/injured, Kamlesh Singh suffered the injuries. Kamlesh and the petitioners have entered into a compromise amicably and have compounded the offence with the intervention of the respective members of the society. They are relatives also and they want to maintain peaceful and cordial relations with each other, therefore, Kamlesh Singh seeks for permission to compound the offence. It is further submitted that on the alleged date of incident i.e., 19.03.2006 the offence u/s 324 of IPC was compoundable, however, after the Amendment Act 25 of 2005 which came into force with effect from 23.06.2006, the offence under this Section became the non-compoundable. Hence, the Amendment Act 25 of 2005 making said offence non-compoundable would not be made applicable in the present case. In this regard, learned counsel cited the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana LAWS (SC)-2012-8-31.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that on the instructions from his client, the petitioners and the complainant have amicably settled the subject-matter of the crime amongst themselves and he has no objection in dropping the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners. The aforesaid application (I.A. No. 8163/2013) may be allowed and the accused may be set at liberty.

The Apex Court in the case of Md. Abdul Sufan Laskar and Others Vs. State of Assam, held as under:-

As we have already noted, according to the prosecution, the appellants had committed the offence on June 15, 1995. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, Act 25 of 2005 has no application to the facts of the case. We, therefore, see no ground to refuse permission as sough by the parties who have compromised the offence which was compoundable under the Code as it stood in 1995. If it is so, compounding can be permitted and accused (appellants) can be acquitted.

For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding that since the matter has been compounded by compromise between the parties and there is no illegality therein, such compounding can be permitted by the Court. The appellants are, hence, entitled to acquittal.

In view of the aforesaid legal position and facts of the present case, the complainant/injured Kamlesh Singh is granted the permission to compound the offence and the compromise petition registered as I.A. No. 8162/2013 and I.A. No. 8163/2013 respectively are hereby allowed and the compromise accorded.

Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentences are hereby set aside and the petitioners are acquitted from the charge under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC and the fine amount, if any, deposited be refunded to them. With the above said, the Criminal Revision is disposed of.