IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 9565 of 2025 (UMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated :06-02-2026 Shri Manish Datt - Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Datt - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Mukesh Shukla - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.

Shri Jil Sharma - Advocate for the complainant through V.C.

Shri Vaibhav Dharpure - Advocate for the complainant present in the court.

Heard on the question of admission.

The appeal is admitted for final hearing.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that compromise has taken place between the parties.

This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 19th September

2025 passed by 21st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No.497 of 2016 (State of M.P. Vs. Mohd. Uber and others). Chandu Sharma has expired during trial.

Vide Para -115 of the judgment learned trial court has acquitted the accused Ijhar, Mohd. Uber and Rishab Soni have been acquitted from the charge under Section 419/120-B, 420/120-B, 467/120-B, 468/120-B and Section 471/120-B of IPC.

The present appellant- Umar has been convicted and sentenced as below :-

It is seen from Para-127 of the judgment that the accused was taken in custody but Akhtar was absent. Arrest warrant was against him.

It is also seen that Umar remained in Police custody from

10.4.2016 to 10.6.2016.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that they have no information whether any appeal has been filed by Akhtar or not.

It is submitted that compromise has taken place between the appellant and Ajay Singh Parmar outside the court and they are ready to get recorded their statements from Indore.

Therefore at their request learned learned Registrar (J) record the compromise statements and submit the report regarding compromise between the appellant - Umar and Ajay Singh Parmar at 4 PM.

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)

JUDGE bks LATER ON 6.2.2026.

Shri Manish Datt - Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Datt - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Mukesh Shukla - Government Advocate for the State of M.P.

Shri Jil Sharma - Advocate for the complainant through V.C.

Shri Vaibhav Dharpure - Advocate for the complainant present in the court.

In continuation of the order dated 6.2.2026 the compromise statements have been recorded by learned Registrar (J-II) of the appellant - Umar appearing through V.C. from the jail and the complainant Ajay Singh Parmar appearing through V.C. who was identified by counsel Shri Jil Sharma, Adv. who stated that Ajay Singh Parmar- complainant has compromised the matter with the accused.

Learned Registrar (J-II) has opined that the compromise seems to be genuine.

Statements of complainant- Ajay Singh Parmar have been recorded.

Out of the offence for which appellant-Umar has been convicted only Section 419 and 420 of IPC can be compounded but the charges have been framed alongwith Section 120-B of IPC. Section 120-B of IPC is not compoundable.

In the case of Joginder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another passed in Criminal Misc. No.20862 of 2005 vide order dated 10th of March 2006, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that under Section 320 Cr.P.C. when charges were against the accused under Section 420 r/w Section 120-B of IPC on the basis of compromise between the complainant and the accused request for compounding the offence under Section 120-B of IPC can be allowed in the same manner as under Section 420 of IPC under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and Section 120-

B of IPC i.e. criminal conspiracy involves, element of abetment.

Relevent Paragraph no. 3 and 4 are reproduced as under :-

(3) Section 320 Cr. P.C. deals with compounding of offences. Offences mentioned in the table under sub-section (1) are compoundable as such. Under sub-section (2) are the offences, which can be compounded with the permission of the Court. Offence u/s 420 IPC falls in this category. Sub-section (3) says that when any offence is compoundable under this section, the abetment of such offence may be compoundable in like manner. The re