The present appeal is filed against the judgment conviction and sentence dated

08.04.2023 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Sessions Trial

No.1300191/2016, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under sections 148,

323/149 (three counts), 325/149 and 307/149, 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 1

year RI (each), 6 months R.I. (each), 2 years of R.I. (each) and 10 years of R.I. (each)

with fine of Rs.Nil, Rs. Nil, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively with default

stipulations.

2. As per the prosecution case, the appellants had caused fatal injury to Yusuf,

Rashid, Akil and Aameen Bee received simple injuries. No danger weapons have been

used. For causing injury to Yusuf, Rashid, Akil and Aameen Bee, they have been

convicted under section 148, 323/149 (three counts), 325/149 and 307/149, 307 IPC. The

appellants and the complainants filed an application for compounding, as I.A.No.

9214/2023.

3. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of the

Court. In compliance to the said order, the appellants were produced before the Principal

Registrar in Escort and complainants also appeared before the Principal Registrar. The

compromise was verified and a report has been submitted that accused/appellants and

the complainants have entered into compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute

remaining between the accused/appellants and the complainants.

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that so far as sentence is concerned, the

appellant has already undergone jail sentence of more than 3 months and the incident had

taken place in the year 2013. The offence under sections 148, 323/149 (three counts),

325/149 and 307/149, 307 of IPC has already been compromised with the

2

victim/complainants and therefore, while maintaining the conviction, the jail sentence may

be reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount may be reasonably

enhanced which may be directed to be paid to the complainants.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence under sections

148, 307 & 149 of IPC are non-compoundable, therefore, the offence cannot be

compounded under section 320 of the Cr.P.C. However, rest of the offences are

compoundable.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the the provisions of section 320 and

482 of the Cr.P.C held that the compounding was permitted in a non- compoundable

offence. Relevant part of the order of the order reads as under :-

"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. 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

3

non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There

does exist the distinction between compoundin