IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI th ON THE 15 OF FEBRUARY, 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3860 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

SURATLAL DHURVE S/O RATANLAL DHURVE, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE BASI DOERI POLICE STATION SHAHPUR SHAHPUR DISTRICTM DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANT (BY SHRI SURENDRA PATEL - ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION SHAHPUR DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (STATE BY SHRI AJAY TAMRAKAR - PANEL LAWYER) (COMPLAINANT BY SHRI HEMANT SEN - ADVOCATE)

This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Counsel for the petitioner as well as victim submit that they have entered into an amicable settlement and in terms of amicable settlement between the parties, they were directed to appear before Registrar (Judicial -II) for the purposes of recording their statement. They appeared before the Registrar (J- II) on 5.1.2024 and their statements have been recorded and the Registrar (J-II) while taking into consideration the statement of the appellant as well victim, submitted a report in which it has been concluded that without there being any coercion or threat out of own free will and volition the parties have entered into Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR compromise. The counsels thus submit that as the marriage of the appellant and respondent No. 2 has been solemnized and they are also blessed with a son who is aged about two years, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Dhandapani v. the State by the Inspector of Police [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 477]

the order of conviction and sentence dated 7.1.2023 deserves to be set aside.

2. Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that as the appellant has been convicted of the offences as aforesaid, therefore, on the basis of compromise only the offences cannot be compounded. In support of his contention reliance is placed on decision of Apex Court in Sri Bimal Chandra Ghosh v. State of Tripura [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 157].

3. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the present appellant was prosecuted under Sections 376 (1), 341, 366, 342 and 324 of I.P.C which ultimately ensued in conviction of the appellant. It is undisputed that the appellant as well as victim were entered into wedlock and there is a son also out of the said wedlock. Thus, the subsequent events in the present case require consideration inasmuch as the parties are at consensus that the judgment of conviction be set aside. The Apex Court in the case of K. Dhandapani (supra), while considering the subsequent events has set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused appellant therein while observing as under:

Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the State, opposed the grant of any relief to the appellant on the ground that the prosecutrix was aged 14 years on the date of the offence and gave birth to the first child when she was 15 years and second child was born when she was 17 years. He argued that the marriage between the appellant and the prosecutrix is not legal. He expressed his apprehension that the said Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIVEK KUMAR marriage might be only for the purpose of escaping punishment and there is no guarantee that the appellant will take care of the prosecutrix and the children after this Court grants relief to him.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant who is maternal uncle of the prosecutrix deserves to be set aside in view of the subsequent events that have been brought to the notice of this Court. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the material uncle.

4. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, this Cou