Back
2017 Supreme(MP) 506
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 (Gwalior);
against judgment dated 16.4.2015 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, Distt. Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 222 of 2011. Decided on 19.4.2017
Pradeep Shrivastava for appellant;
Prakhar Dhengula, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.340, 341 and 320 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.420/34, 467/34, 468/34, 506 part 2 and 195 -- appellant compromised in compoundable offence and did not support prosecution in non-compoundable offences -- trial Court took cognizance and directed that complaint be filed before JMFC Court against appellant -- appeal -- appellant did not support prosecution as he entered into compromise with accused persons -- such an act of appellant cannot be said to be detrimental or contrary to criminal jurisprudence -- it is not expedient in interest of justice of proved against appellant -- direction given by trial Court against appellant is unwarranted which are quashed -- complaint and other proceedings also quashed -- appeal allowed.
Held : In the present case, when appellant did not support the prosecution as he had entered into a compromise with the accused persons, such an act of the appellant cannot be said to be detrimental or contrary to the criminal jurisprudence.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not expedient in the interest of justice to proceed against the appellant. Thus, the direction given by the trial Court to proceed under section 340 of CrPC against the appellant as well as filing a complaint before JMFC Gohad District Bhind is unwarranted. 2016(III) MPWN 138 (SC) followed.
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.320, 340 and 341 -- not only offence mentioned in section 320 of Code 1973 can be compounded -- either as a matter of right or with permission of Court -- but at same time -- non-compoundable offences can also be compromised with permission of High Court -- compounding or compromising a criminal offence is not alien to criminal jurisprudence.
Held : It is well established principle of law that if the offences alleged against the accused persons are not against the society and are not heinous in nature and if they are in respect of commercial transaction, then the complainant can enter into a compromise with the accused persons and the proceedings can be quashed on the ground of compromise.
Thus, not only offence mentioned in section 320 of CrPC can be compounded either as a matter of right or with the permission of the Court but at the same time, non-compoundable offences can also be compromised with the permission of the High Court. Thus, the compounding or compromising a criminal offence is not alien to the criminal jurisprudence. (2012)10 SCC 303 and (2014)6 SCC 466 followed.
¼1½ naM+ izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 340] 341 rFkk 320 && naM+ lafgrk 1860 && /kkjk 420@34] 467@34] 468@34] 506 Hkkx 2 rFkk 195 && vihykFkhZ us 'keuh; vijk/k esa le>kSrk fd;k rFkk v'keuh; vijk/kksa esa vfHk;kstu dk leFkZu ugah fd;k && fopkj.k U;k;ky; us laKku fy;k rFkk funsf'kr fd;k fd vihykFkhZ ds fo:) izFke oxZ U;kf;d eftLVsªV U;k;ky; ds le{k ifjokn izLrqr dh tkos && vihy && vihykFkhZ dk bl izdkj dk dk;Z vkijkf/kd U;k; 'kkL= ds izfrdwy ;k gkfudkjd ugah dgk tk ldrk && vihykFkhZ ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, U;k;fgr esa ;g lehphu ugh gS && fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vihykFkhZ ds fo:) fn, x, funsZ'k vuqfpr gS tks vfHk[kafM+r fd, tkrs gS && ifjokn rFkk vU; dk;Zokfg;kW Hkh vfHk[kafMr && vihy LohdkjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl ekeys esa tc vihykFkhZ us vfHk;kstu dk leFkZu ugah fd;k D;ksfd mlus vfHk;qDr O;fDR;ksa ds lkFk le>kSrk dj fy;k FkkA vihykFkhZ dk ,slk dk;Z vkijkf/kd U;k;'kkL= ds izfrdwy rFkk gkfudkjd ugha dgk tk ldrkA
bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds v/khu bl U;k;ky; dh jk; gS fd vihykFkhZ ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djuk U;k;fgr esa lehphu ugha gSA bl izdkj fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk naM+ izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 340 ds v/khu vihykFkhZ ds fo:) dk;Zokgh djuk lkFk gh lkFk izFke oxZ U;kf;d eftLVsªV xksgn ftyk fHkaM+ ds le{k ifjokn izLrqr djus ds fy, funsZ'k vuqfpr gSA 2016¼3½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 138 ¼mPpre U;k;ky;½ vuqlfjrA
¼2½ naM+ izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 320] 340 rFkk 341 && u dsoy lafgrk 1973 dh /kkjk 320 esa mfYyf[kr fd, x, vijk/k 'keu fd, tk ldrs gS && ;k rks vf/kdkj dh n`f"V ls ;k U;k;ky; dh vuqKk }kjk && ijarq mlh le; v'keuh; vijk/kksa esa Hkh mPp U;k;ky; dh vuqKk ls le>kSrk fd;k tk ldrk gS && 'keu djuk ;k nkafM+d vijk.k esa le>kSrk djuk vkijkf/kd U;k;'kkL= ds izfrdwy ugha gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g fof/k dk lqLFkkfir fl)kar gS fd ;fn vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds fo:) vfHkdfFkr fd, x, vijk/k lekt ds fo:) ugha gS rFkk ?k`f.kr izd`fr dk ugha gS rFkk ;fn os ;fn O;kikfjd ysu nsu ds laca/k esa gS rc ifjoknh vfHk;qDr O;fDR;ksa ds lkFk le>kSrk dj ldrk gS rFkk dk;Zokgh le>kSrk ds vk/kkj ij vfHk[kafM+r dh tk ldrh gSA
bl izdkj u dsoy og vijk/k tks naM+ izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 320 esa mfYyf[kr gS vf/kdkj dh n`f"V ls ;k U;k;ky; dh vuqKk ls 'keu fd;k tk ldrk gS cfYd mlh le; mPp U;k;ky; dh vuqKk ls v'keuh; vijk/kksa ls Hkh le>kSrk fd;k tk ldrk gS bl izdkj nkafM+d vijk/k 'keu djuk ;k le>kSrk djuk vkijkf/kd U;k;k'kkL= ds izfrdwy ugha gSA ¼2012½ 10 ,l lh lh 303 rFkk ¼2014½ 6 ,l lh lh 466 vuqlfjrA
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 2 of IPC. The charges were framed against accused persons for above mentioned offences.
3. Undisputed facts are that during pencency 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 2 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 under sections 467/34, 468/34 and 506 Part 2 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 2 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 2 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 pencency of the trial, then, it cannot be said that he
