Supreme Court of India
SURAJ SINGH GUJAR & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 661
- Decided
- 30 August 2024
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court set aside the convictions, invoking its power under Article 142, as the offence was between close relatives, the compromise was genuine, and the societal impact was minimal.
Summary
The appellants were convicted under IPC sections 323, 324 and 325 read with section 34 for an assault incident that occurred between close relatives. They later executed a compromise deed on 29 January 2024, seeking the Court’s permission to compound the offences. The Supreme Court examined whether the conviction for the non‑compoundable offence under section 324 could be set aside despite the compromise, invoking its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution. Relying on precedents that allow the Court to quash non‑compoundable offences in exceptional cases involving relatives, minimal societal impact, and genuine reconciliation, the Court held that the factors favored invoking Article 142. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and disposed of the appeal, directing that the appellants need not surrender.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction for a non‑compoundable offence under IPC section 324 can be set aside on the basis of a compromise between the parties.
- Whether the Supreme Court may exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash convictions in non‑compoundable offences.
- Whether the facts of the case satisfy the criteria laid down in earlier judgments for invoking Article 142.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 482
- Constitution of Indias. Article 142
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 323, s. 324, s. 325, s. 34
Subjects
Section 323 of Penal Code, 1860Section 324 of Penal Code, 1860Section 325 of Penal Code, 1860Settlement of disputeCompromise between the partiesCompoundable offenceNon-compoundable offenceNature of injuriesIncident between relativesArticle 142 of the Constitution
Judgment
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 782 : 2024 INSC 661
Suraj Singh Gujar & Anr.
v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3731 of 2024)
30 August 2024
[Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellants were convicted by the Trial Court u/ss.323, 324 and
325 r/w. s.34 of IPC. It is stated by the appellants that they have
settled the dispute with the injured persons vide compromise
deed dated 29.01.2024. In the instant appeal, they are seeking
permission of the Court for compounding the offence.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323, 324 and 325 r/w. s.34 – Constitution
of India – Art.142 – Incident between relatives – Conviction
under non-compoundable offences set aside:
Held: On perusal of affidavits filed, this Court found that since
the appellants are the cousin of respondents no.2 and 3 and
have tendered an unconditional apology regarding the incident,
these respondents have agreed to compound the offence – A
similar stand has been taken by respondent no. 4, who is the
uncle of the appellants – As far as Sections 323 and 325 of
the IPC are concerned, offences under these provisions are
compoundable but the offence under Section 324 of the IPC is
a non-compoundable offence – In a series of cases, considering
that the incident occurred between relatives and the incident is
of such a nature which did not have much impact on society,
this Court had set aside the conviction by invoking its power
under Article 142 of the Constitution in matters involving
non-compoundable offences – However, this is to be done only
in exceptional cases after considering various factors including
the nature of injuries, relation between parties and the impact
of crime on society, etc – In instant case, the incident occurred
on 20.05.2011 relating to a minor issue where respondent no.2
was trying to tie bullocks to which the appellants objected by
saying that it was their land – As is clear from the compromise,
the appellants and complainant side are close relatives and
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 783
Suraj Singh Gujar & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
after settling their disputes, both sides have agreed to maintain
peace and harmony in the society – Taking all of this into
account, the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution are
invoked and the conviction of appellants in the present case are
set aside. [Paras 4, 5, 6, 7]
Case Law Cited
Ramgopal & Anr. v. State of M.P [2021] 6 SCR 249 : (2022) 14
SCC 531 – relied on.
Murali v. State [2021] 1 SCR 201 : (2021) 1 SCC 726; Manjit Singh
v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2020) 18 SCC 777; Kailash Chand v.
State of Rajasthan (2021) 18 SCC 534; Srinivasan Iyenger & Anr. v.
Bimla Devi Agarwal & Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 456; Ramawatar v. State
of M.P [2021] 10 SCR 499 : (2022) 13 SCC 635 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Section 323 of Penal Code, 1860; Section 324 of Penal
Code, 1860; Section 325 of Penal Code, 1860; Settlement
of dispute; Compromise between the parties; Compoundable
offence; Non-compoundable offence; Nature of injuries; Incident
between relatives; Article 142 of the Constitution.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3731
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.12.2023 of the High Court of
M.P. Principal Seat at Jabalpur in CRLA No. 1999 of 2013
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Deeksha Saggi, Abhishek Kumar, Rituparn Uniyal, K Anil Singh,
Ram Lal Roy, Advs. for the Appellants.
D. S. Parmar, A.A.G., Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Abhimanyu Singh-
G.a., Saurabh Singh, Ms. Shruti Verma, Nayan Mishra, Shivang
Jain, Satyajeet Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
784 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Leave granted.
2. The appellants have been convicted by the Trial Court under Sections
323, 324 and 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months,
six months and one year for respective offences. Vide the impugned
order dated 26.12.2023, Madhya Pradesh High Court disposed of
the criminal appeal of appellants by maintaining their conviction and
sentence as awarded by the Trial Court.
3. Now, the appellants have filed the present appeal stating that they
have settled the dispute with the injured persons vide a Compromise
Deed dated 29.01.2024 and thus, pray before us to grant permission
for compounding the offence.
The relevant portion from paragraphs 12 to 17 of the Settlement
Deed reads as follows:
“12. That the First Party and Second Party are Uncle and
Nephew in relation, thereby with the interference of elders
of the family members, the First Party and Second Party
have agreed to settle their dispute amicably.
13. That the First Party has tendered unconditional apology
to the Second Party before the elder members of their
families and the Second Party being the uncle and looking
at the age of First Party has agreed to forgive the First Party
on the unconditional apology tendered by the first party.
14. That the Second Party and First Party have agreed to
compound their offence with the leave of the Hon’ble Court.
15. That the present MOU has been signed and executed
by the SECOND PARTY out of his own free will without
any fear, pressure, coercion and undue influence of others.
16. That the FIRST PARTY and SECOND PARTY have also
agreed that in future no such dispute will arise between
the First Party and Second Party and further, they have
also agreed that they will maintain peace and harmony
in the society.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 785
Suraj Singh Gujar & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
17. That all the disputes in relation to above-mentioned
FIR and Cases have been amicably settled by the parties
and neither party shall file against the other, or against
their family, relative successor or assign any criminal case
in relation to the above-mentioned FIR and Cases.”
4. When this matter came for hearing before this Court on 22.04.2024,
we had directed the appellants to implead the injured persons as
party respondents and thereafter, the impleaded private respondents
were asked to file the affidavits regarding their stand on compounding
of the offences. We have gone through the affidavits and found that
since the appellants are the cousin of respondents no.2 and 3 and
have tendered an unconditional apology regarding the incident,
these respondents have agreed to compound the offence. A similar
stand has been taken by respondent no. 4, who is the uncle of the
appellants.
5. As far as Sections 323 and 325 of the IPC are concerned, offences
under these provisions are compoundable but the offence under
Section 324 of the IPC is a non-compoundable offence.
6. Courts cannot grant permission to compound the non-compoundable
offences, on the basis of any sort of compromise between the parties,
as it would be contrary to what has been provided by legislation,
except the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC and the Apex
Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India.
The compromise between the parties in non-compoundable cases
has been taken into consideration by this Court in various occasions
to reduce the sentence of the convicts. (See: Murali v. State (2021)
1 SCC 726; Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2020) 18
SCC 777 ) Also, in a series of other cases, considering that the
incident occurred between relatives and the incident is of such a
nature which did not have much impact on society, this Court had
set aside the conviction by invoking its power under Article 142 of
the Constitution in matters involving non-compoundable offences.
(See: Kailash Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2021) 18 SCC 534;
Srinivasan Iyenger & Anr. v. Bimla Devi Agarwal & Ors. (2019)
4 SCC 456; Ramawatar v. State of M.P (2022) 13 SCC 635 )
786 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
However, this is to be done only in exceptional cases after considering
various factors including the nature of injuries, relation between
parties and the impact of crime on society, etc. While discussing
the powers of Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC
(in relation to High Courts) in quashing criminal proceedings in non-
compoundable offences, this Court in Ramgopal & Anr. v. State of
M.P (2022) 14 SCC 531 observed as follows:
“19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section
320 CrPC where the Court is squarely guided by the
compromise between the parties in respect of offences
“compoundable” within the statutory framework, the
extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under
Section 482 CrPC or vested in this Court under Article 142
of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and
bounds of Section 320 CrPC. Nonetheless, we reiterate
that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised
carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings,
bearing in mind:
19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience
of the society;
19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any;
19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused
and the victim; and
19.4 Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations.”
Considering the aforesaid factors, we have no doubt that the present
case, which we are dealing with, is a fit case to invoke our powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution.
7. In our case, the incident occurred on 20.05.2011 relating to a minor
issue where respondent no.2 was trying to tie bullocks to which the
appellants objected by saying that it was their land. As is clear from
the compromise, the appellants and complainant side are close
relatives and after settling their disputes, both sides have agreed to
maintain peace and harmony in the society. Taking all of this into
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 787
Suraj Singh Gujar & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
account, we invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution
and hereby, set aside the conviction of appellants in the present
case. Appellants, who are already outside jail, need not surrender.
8. Accordingly, the present appeal stands disposed of along with the
pending applications, if any.
Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 323 of Penal Code, 1860"Sign in to search