Ajju Alias Ajay vs State Of M.P. And Another

The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order dated 10/01/2020 passed by the Court of JMFC, Sihora, Distt. Jabalpur (Annexure-A/1) in this petition and also prays to accept compromise between the parties.

The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that applicant-Ajju alias Ajay along with co-accused Bablu Pandit alias Ramakant with common intention entered into the house of respondent No.2-Milan Barman and by uttering filthy words assaulted him. One of the co-accused inflicted stab injuries on the person of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 reported the matter at Police Station, Sihora where Crime No.400/2007 registered and after investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of JMFC, Sihora, registered as Criminal Case No.770/2007.

Learned trial Court framed charges and commenced trial against the applicant along with co-accused and after completing the trial delivered judgment on 07/05/2015 thereby convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months RI along with fine Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

The applicant being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence preferred appeal registered as Criminal Appeal No.181/2015. Learned appellate Court after hearing both the parties delivered the judgment on 09/01/2020 whereby while affirming the conviction and sentences, dismissed the appeal. The applicant did not appear before the appellate Court and learned trial Court vide order dated 10/01/2020 issued non-bailable warrant for securing presence of the applicant-Ajju alias Ajay for execution of jail sentence.

The applicant has filed this petition for invoking inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 10/01/2020 (Annexure-A/1) whereby non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant for securing his presence and also prays for accepting compromise because injured now settled the dispute with the applicant.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed along with this petition.

It is pertinent to note here that the applicant had been convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months RI along with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation by the trial Court i.e. the Court of JMFC, Sihora, Distt. Jabalpur and this conviction and sentence has been affirmed by the appellate Court. Now as per Section 393 of Cr.P.C., this conviction and sentence attains its finality. Section 393 of Cr.P.C. reads as under :

Finality of judgments and orders on appeal.- Judgments and orders passed by an Appellate Court upon an appeal shall be final, except in the cases provided for in section 377, section 378, sub-section (4) of section 384 or Chapter XXX:

Provided that notwithstanding the final disposal of an appeal against conviction in any case, the Appellate Court may hear and dispose of, on the merits,-

(a) an appeal against acquittal under section 378, arising out of the same case, or

(b) an appeal for the enhancement of sentence under section 377, arising out of the same case."

On bare perusal of the provisions of this section, this Court is of the view that conviction under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC against the applicant attains finality because conviction and sentence has been affirmed by the appellate Court. In these circumstances, whether the Court can set aside the conviction and sentence if the complainant arrived at settlement after passing the judgment of the appellate Court.

Hon'ble Appex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, in para-29 has held as under :

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(29.1) .........

(29.2) ............

(29.3) ............

(29.4) .............

(29.5) .............

(29.6) .............

(29.7) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."

On the basis of the documents produced along with this petition and the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court finds that the conviction and sentence passed by the Court of JMFC against the applicant has been affirmed by the appellate Court. As per Section 393 of Cr.P.C., this conviction and sentence attains its finality and now it cannot be said that it is an initial stage of criminal proceeding when the victim arrived at settlement to compromise the matter with the applicant. When the conviction and sentence attains its finality as per Section 393 of Cr.P.C., this Court is of the firm view that if the victim, at this later stage, compromised the matter with the applicant, this Court should not interfere into the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court and should also not invoke the inherent power for quashing of such type of conviction and sentence on the basis of compromise arrived at a very belated stage.

Everyone is expected to obey the order of judicial Court. However, in the same way, the applicant is expected to appear before the trial Court. There is no need to quash the alleged non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant for securing his presence on the ground that he is ill. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that there is no need to invoke inherent power in these circumstances.

Accordingly, this petition sans merit and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.

If any interlocutory application is pending, the same stands dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary information.