1

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5632 of 2014]

State of Madhya Pradesh .. Appellant

Versus

Kalyan Singh & Ors. .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

M. R. Shah, J.

Leave granted.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 29.7.2018 passed by the High Court of

Madhya  Pradesh in  Miscellaneous  Criminal  Case  No.  6075  of

2013, by which the High Court has quashed the criminal

proceedings pending against the present Respondent herein by

Crime No. 23 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 307, 294

read Section 34 of the IPC registered at the Police Station

2

Maharajpur, District Gwalior, the State of Madhya Pradesh has

preferred the present appeal.

2. That the Respondent No. 5 herein­the original Complainant

one Birbal Sharma filed a complaint against Respondent Nos. 1

to 4 herein­the original Accused for the offences under Sections

307, 294 read  with Section 34 of the IPC.   That the said

complaint was registered as Crime No. 23 of 2013 at the Police

Station Maharajpur, District Gwalior.   It appears that the

original Accused filed an application for bail which came to

rejected by the learned Sessions Court and, thereafter, the

original Accused approached the High Court by filing the

Miscellaneous  Criminal  Case  No.  6075 of  2013 under  Section

482 of the Cr.PC and requested to quash the criminal

proceedings  on the  ground that the  accused  and the original

Complainant have settled the dispute amicably.   That the

original Complainant submitted his affidavit stating that he has

amicably settled the subject­matter of the crime with the original

Accused and that he has no objection for dropping the criminal

proceedings.  That,  by the  impugned  judgment and order, the

High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC

3

has quashed the criminal proceedings against the original

Accused which were  for the  offences under Sections 307,  294

read with Section 34 of the IPC, solely on the ground that the

original Complainant and Accused have settled the dispute and

the original Complainant does not want to prosecute the accused

and, therefore, there is no change of recording conviction against

the accused persons.   At this stage, it is required to be noted

that the said application was opposed by the State observing that

the offences alleged against the accused are non­compoundable

offences and, therefore, even if there is any settlement between

the Complainant and the Accused, the complaint cannot be

quashed.   However, despite the above, the High Court quashed

the criminal proceedings against the original Accused on the

ground that there is a settlement between the Complainant and

the original Accused and the original Complainant does not want

to prosecute the accused further.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order passed by the  High  Court quashing the

criminal proceedings against the accused for the offences under

4

Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the State of

Madhya Pradesh has preferred the present appeal.

3. We have  heard Shri  Ms.  Swarupama Chaturvedi, learned

Advocate appearing on behalf  of  the State of Madhya Pradesh,

Ms. Malini Poduval, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the

original Accused and perused the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court.

3.1 It is required to  be  noted that the  original  Accused  was

facing the  criminal  proceedings  under  Sections  307,  294 read

with  Section  34  of the IPC.   It is  not in  dispute that  as  per

Section 20 of the Cr.PC offences under Sections 307, 294 read

with Section 34 of the IPC are  non­compoundable.   It is  also

required to be noted that the allegations in the complaint for the

offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC

are, as such, very serious.   It is alleged that the accused fired

twice on the complainant by a country­made pistol.   From the

material on record, it appears that one of the accused persons

was reported to be a hardcore criminal having criminal

5

antecedents.   Be that as it may, the fact remains that the

accused  was facing the criminal proceedings for the offences

under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC and that

the offences under these sections are not non­compoundable

offences and, looking to the serious allegations against the

accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has

committed a grave error in quashing the criminal proceedings for

the offences under Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the

IPC solely on the ground that the original Complainant and the

accused have settled the dispute.   At this stage, the decision of

this Court in the case of Gulab Das and Ors. V. State of M.P.

(2011) 12 SCALE 625 is required to be referred to.   In the said

decision, this Court has specifically observed and held that,

despite any settlement between the Complainant on the one hand

and the accused on the other, the criminal proceedings for the

offences under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be quashed, as the

offence under Section 307 is a non­compoundable offence.

Under the circumstance, the impugned judgment and order

passed  by the  High  Court quashing the criminal proceedings

6

against the original Accused for the offences under Sections 307,

294 read with Section 34 of the IPC cannot be sustained and the

same deserves to be quashed and set aside.   

4.   In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

present appeal  is allowed.   The impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court  in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.

6075 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside.   Consequently,

the criminal proceedings being Crime  No. 23 of 2013 under

Sections 307, 294 read with Section 34 of the IPC registered at

Police Station Maharajpur, District Gwalior be proceeded further

in accordance with law and on its own merits.  

……………………………….J. (D. Y. CHANDRACHUD)

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

New Delhi, January 4, 2019.