Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 251 (MP)

Shyam Sunder v. State of M. P.

2025-04-02

MANINDER S.BHATTI

body2025
ORDER 1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.9.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge Niwari, District Tikamgarh in Session Trial No.218/2015, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/-to each appellants, section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/-to each appellants, section 468 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/-to each appellants and section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/-to each appellants with default stipulations. 2. The counsel for the appellants submits that during the pendency of the present appeal, good sense prevailed over the parties and the appellants and complainant have arrived at an amicable settlement and therefore, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the appellants be acquitted of the aforesaid offences. I.A. No.2077 of 2025 [(under section 320(1) of Cr.P.C.] and I.A.No.2078 of 2025 [under section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.] have been filed seeking permission to compound the offences. 3. In terms of the order passed by this Court on 5.3.2025, the parties appeared before the Registrar Judicial - II on 11.3.2025 for verification of their compromise where their statements have been recorded and the Registrar Judicial - II vide his report dated 11.3.2025 has verified the compromise entered into between the parties. It is mentioned in the report that the complainant has expressed that she has voluntarily entered into compromise with the appellants with free will and volition and without any threat and inducement to settle their disputes. 4. The apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 while dealing with exercised inherent power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has issued guidelines and the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below: "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. 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." 5. Further, the Apex Court recently in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh - (2022) 13 SCC 635 in Paragraphs 10 and 11 has observed as under:- "10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in Ram gopal v. State of M.P. (2022) 14 SCC 531 , wherein, a two-Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J.) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under section 320 CrPC cannot be construed as a proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under section 482 CrPC. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under section 320 CrPC cannot be construed as a proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under section 482 CrPC. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or section 482 CrPC, would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers. 11. The Court in Ramgopal further postulated that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck post-conviction, the courts should, inter alia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain guidelines and held: (SCC para 19) "19.....Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: 19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of society; 19.2 Seriousness of the injury, if any; 19.3. Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim and 19.4. Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations." 17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a "special statute" would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or section 482 Cr.P.C." (Emphasis supplied) 6. Thus, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties and in the light of the law laid down by the apex Court in Gian Singh (supra) a n d Ramawatar (supra), I.A. No.2077 of 2025 [(under section 320(1)] and I.A.No.2078 of 2025 [under section 320(2)] are allowed. Compromise is accepted. 7. Consequently, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, this criminal appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.9.2017 passed by Additional session Judge Niwari, District Tikamgarh in Session Trial No.218/2015 stands set aside. The appellants, namely, Shyam Sunder, Meghraj, Smt. Jayadevi, Ramadevi, Manohar and Sunil ae acquitted of the offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. 8. Let record of the trial Court be sent back along with the copy of this judgment for information and necessary action.