Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
Jagdish Singh Namdhari v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.396 of 2015 (G); Decided on 19.4.2017.*
Pradeep Shrivastava for appellant; Prakhar Dhengula, Penal Lawyer for respondent/State.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.340 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.199 and 200 -- merely because person not supported prosecution case -- cannot be sufficient to proceed against him. 2016(III) MPWN 138 (SC) followed. [Para 12
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.340 and 320 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 506 Pt.II -- not only compoundable offences can be compounded -- but non-compoundable offences can also be compromised with permission of the High Court -- appellant not supported prosecution as he compromised with accused persons -- his act cannot be said to be detrimental or contrary to criminal jurisprudence. [Para 16
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 340 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 199 rFkk 200 & ek= bl dkj.k ls fd O;fDr us vfHk;kstu ekeys dk leFkZu ugha fd;k & mlds fo#) dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, i;kZIr ughaA 2016 ¼3½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 138 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA
¼iSjk 12½
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 340 rFkk 320 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 420@34] 467@34] 468@34 rFkk 506 Hkkx 2 & u dsoy 'keuh; vijk/kksa dk le>kSrk fd;k tk ldrk gS & vfirq mPp U;k;ky; dh vuqKk ls v'keuh; vijk/kksa dk Hkh le>kSrk fd;k tk ldrk gS & vihykFkhZ us vfHk;kstu dk leFkZu ugha fd;k D;ksafd mlus vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa ls le>kSrk dj fy;k Fkk & mldk ÑR; nkafMd fof/k'kkL= ds gkfudkjd vFkok izfrdwy gksuk ugha dgk tk ldrkA
¼iSjk 16½
1. This criminal appeal has been filed under section 341 of CrPC arising out of the judgment dated 16.4.2015 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad District Bhind in Sessions Trial No.222 of 2011 by which, the trial Court while deciding the Sessions Trial has directed that as the appellant had not supported the prosecution case, therefore, it appears that he had given false evidence, accordingly, cognizance was taken under section 340 of CrPC and it was directed that the complaint be filed before the Court of JMFC, Gohad District Bhind.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that appellant lodged an FIR against accused Kaptan Singh and Rakesh Yadav on the allegation that by misrepresenting, they had fraudulently taken an amount of Rs.1,91,800/- from the appellant. Accordingly, the police filed charge sheet against accused Kaptan Singh and Rakesh Yadav for the offence under sections 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 506 Part II of IPC. The charges were framed against accused persons for above mentioned offences.
3. Undisputed facts are that during pendency of the trial, appellant entered into a compromise with accused Kaptan Singh and Rakesh Yadav and filed an application under section 320 of CrPC seeking permission to compound the offence. As the offence punishable under section 420/34 of IPC was compoundable, therefore, the application was partially allowed and the accused persons namely Kaptan Singh and Rakesh Yadav were acquitted for the said charge. However, as the offences punishable under under sections 467/34,
468/34 and 506 Part II of IPC were not compoundable, therefore, application in respect of those offences was rejected.
4. It appears that as the appellant had compromised his dispute with the accused persons, therefore, he did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. As the prosecution could not produce any substantive evidence against accused persons namely Kaptan Singh and Rakesh Yadav, therefore, vide judgment dated 16.4.2015 passed in ST No.222 of 2011, the Second ASJ Gohad acquitted the accused persons for offence under sections 467/34, 468/34 and 506 Part II of IPC. However, while passing the judgment of acquittal, the trial Court observed that as the appellant had given false evidence, therefore, cognizance under section 340 of IPC was taken and directed that a complaint be preferred in the Court of JMFC, Gohad District Bhind.
5. Being aggrieved by the said direction, appellant has filed present appeal before this Court.
6. This Court vide order dated 13.7.2015 stayed further proceedings before the JMFC, Gohad District Bhind. Thus, it is clear that no proceedings in the trial has taken place.
7. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that undisputedly, the appellant has compromised his dispute with the accused persons under section 320 of CrPC. It is a right given to the complainant under Code of Criminal Procedure to compound the offence. Thus, if the appellant has compounded the offence punishable under sections 467/34, 468/34 and 506 Part II of IPC, then it cannot be said that he had done anything which was not recognized under the law. It is further submitted that application filed under section 320 of CrPC was partially allowed by the trial Court and it was rejected for offence punishable under sections 467/34, 468/34 and 506 Part II of IPC, mainly on the ground that the said offences are not cognizable.
8. So far as compromise in respect of non-cognizable offences are concerned, it is submitted that the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [(2012)10 SCC 303] and Narendra Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and another [(2014)6 SCC 466], has specifically held that if the offences are not heinous and involves commercial transaction, then offences can be allowed to be compromised. Thus, it is submitted that if a person compromises the offence during pendency of the trial, then, it cannot be said that he has d
