Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nainya @ Amarsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 April, 2022

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-953-2022 Nainya @ Amarsingh and another Vs. State of MP Gwalior, Dated : 20/04/2022 Shri Rishikesh Bohare, Counsel for the applicants. Shri Rohit Mishra, Counsel for the State. Shri Anil Jha, Counsel for the complainant. This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of CrPC has been filed against the judgment dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No.94/2019 thereby affirming the judgment and sentence dated 10.04.2019 passed by JMFC, Guna in RCT No.4969/2017, by which the applicant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default rigorous imprisonment of one month and the applicant No. 2 has been convicted under Section 325/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default rigorous imprisonment of one month.

I.A. No.5319/2022 and I.A. No.5320/2022 have been filed under Sections 320(1) of CrPC and 320(2) of CrPC seeking permission to compound the offence.

The offence under Section 325 of IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court. Accordingly, by order dated 12.04.2022, the parties were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 13.04.2022 for verification of factum of compromise. The 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-953-2022 Nainya @ Amarsingh and another Vs. State of MP Principal Registrar of this Court after recording the statement of the witnesses has submitted following report:-

"After verifying from Complainant/Victim Nenakram S/o Shri Kishanlal Banjara and Accused/Petitioner No. 1 Nainya @ Amarsingh and No. 2 Pappu S/o Shri Ratna Banjara that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion.
According to Sec. 320 of CRPC the Offence U/S 325 of the I.P.C. is compoundable."

Thus, it is clear that the complainant has voluntarily agreed to compound the offence. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the charge-sheet was filed on 12.04.2017 and the judgment was pronounced on 10.04.2019, thereafter the appeal was filed which was decided by the Appellate Court by judgment dated 08.03.2022. It appears that the applicants did not make any effort to develop harmonious atmosphere till they were sent to jail as they had not remained in jail even for one day as an undertrial prisoner and after their conviction, sentence was suspended. Only when they have been sent to jail after the dismissal of the appeal, they made some attempt to develop harmonious atmosphere and the relationship with the complainant. Under these circumstances, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that valuable time of the Courts below was also consumed because of non-effort made by the applicants to realize their mistake and to improve their relationship with the complainant. Furthermore, 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRR-953-2022 Nainya @ Amarsingh and another Vs. State of MP as per the X-ray report, the complainant had suffered fracture of left radius and ulna bone. Under these circumstances, the application for compounding can be accepted only on depositing the cost for consuming the valuable time of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Accordingly, I.A. No.5319/2022 and I.A. No.5320/2022 are allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- each which is to be deposited in the Registry of this Court.

Accordingly, judgment dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No.94/2019 and the judgment and sentence dated 10.04.2019 passed by JMFC, Guna in RCT No.4969/2017 are hereby set aside qua the applicants. The applicants are acquitted of all the charges. The deposit of cost shall be a condition precedent. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the applicants shall be refunded.

The revision succeeds and is hereby allowed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2022.04.21 15:45:43 +05'30'