The court may reduce the sentence based on a compromise between the parties, even if the offence is non-compoundable, to meet the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

Prem Narayan Singh, J. - Both the criminal appeals were heard analogously being arising out of the same crime number and are being decided with the common order.

2. The present appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.07.2023, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.1600436/2014, whereby, the appellants have been convicted under sections 420, 467, 168 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 07, 10 and 07 years with fine of Rs.1000/- for each offences respective with default stipulations. In addition, the appellant Bablu has also been convicted and sentenced under Section 465 r/w 471 of IPC and sentenced for 02 years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- alongwith default stipulations.

3. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the appellants is that Bablu and Rajesh alongwith other co-accused persons namely Rajesh and Mittal have hatched a conspiracy and sale out the plot of the complainant on the basis of forged and fabricated Mukhtiyarnama by keeping present another person on behalf of the complainant before the registry officer. Hence, on the complaint of the complainant, the offence was registered against the appellants and co-accused persons.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Thereafter, the learned trial Court has framed the charges against the appellants under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The matter was later on committed to the Court of sessions and the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 465/471 of IPC of IPC. Both the parties have filed an application for compounding the offences before this Court.

5. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of the Court alongwith the record vide order dated 27.10.2023. In compliance to the said order, the appellant/Bablo marked his presence before the Principal Registrar through with his counsel in custody of escort and complainant also appeared before the Principal Registrar. The compromise was verified and a report dated 02.11.2023 has been submitted in which it is mentioned that accused/appellant and the complainant has entered into compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute is remained between the accused/appellant and the complainant.

6. Further, it is also pertinent to mention here that there is no compromised filed before this Court regarding appellant Rajesh, but after going through the record, it is evident that the complainant has fled compromise application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. against both the appellants Bablu and Rajesh and clearly narrated in his application that due to advise of reputed and senior citizens of the vicinity, the matter has been settled by him with both the appellants. This fact has also been mentioned in para no.14 of the judgment of learned trial Court that the complainant has conceded in his crossexamination that the compromise has been executed between the complainant and both the appellants. In these conditions, it would be assumed that the complainant has settled his dispute with both the appellants. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid, counsel for both the parties prays for undergone of the jail sentence of the appellants to the period already undergone by enhancing the fine amount on the basis of compromise.

7. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant has already undergone jail sentence of approximately two years and six months respectively and the incident had taken place in the year 2013. As the parties have entered into compromise, the appellants may be discharged from the aforesaid offence.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that as per the verification report, the offence under sections 467, 468 and 465/471 of IPC is non-compoundable, therefore, the offence cannot be compounded under section 320 of the Cr.P.C

9. Nevertheless, the appellant has not impugned the merits of conviction co