IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA rd ON THE 3 OF APRIL, 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1728 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

1. HAIDER SHAH S/O HAKIM SHAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O VILLAGE JAHANGIRPUR TEHSIL BADNAGAR DISTT.

UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. ASLAM SHAH S/O HUSSAIN SHAH, AGED ABOUT

40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE HAJANGIRPUR TEH. BADNAGAR, DIST.

UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. AMJAD SHAH S/O HAKIM SHAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOURER VILLAGE JAHANGIRPUR TEH. BADNAGAR, DIST. UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPELLANTS (BY SHRI RAHUL SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION INGORIYA DIST.

UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENT (SHRI SHASHIKANT BHATI - P.L. FOR STATE) &

(SHRI NITIN JOSHI, COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT)

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

JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.1.2024 passed by ASJ, Badnagar, District Ujjain in S.T.No.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA

18/2022 whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs.2000/- each with default stipulation.

2. Counsel submits that I.A.No. 3624/2024 has been filed under section

320(5) Cr.P.C. for permission of compromise on behalf of injured Saeed Shah and complainant Mushtaq Shah stating that the appellants and complainant are relatives and belong to same family and dispute has been settled.

3. The Court sent the matter for verification of the aforesaid compromise before the Registrar. After verifying the compromise, a report has been submitted that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion. They have amicably settled their dispute. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence under section 307 of the IPC is non-compoundable, therefore, the offence cannot be compounded under section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

5. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: MUKTA 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 non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 4