Madhya Pradesh High Court
Antar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18164
1 CRA-2892-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 8 th OF JULY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2892 of 2026
ANTAR SINGH S/O GANGA RAM
AND
JITENDRA SINGH S/O ANTAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Appellant by Shri Amar Singh Rathore - Advocate.
Respondent - State of Madhya Pradesh by Shri Ambuj Patel -
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Advocate General.
Complainant - objector by Shri Vikas Sharma - Advocate.
ORDER
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is
heard finally.
The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 415 of
Bhartiya Nagarik Sanhita, 2023 = Section 374 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by judgment dated 26.02.2026 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Badnagar, District Ujjain (MP) in
Session Trial No.34 of 2022, whereby the appellants have been convicted for
the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323 read with Section 149, 307
read with Section 149 and 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/-, six
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 09-07-2026
19:14:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18164
2 CRA-2892-2026
months with fine of Rs.500/-, ten years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and six
months with fine of Rs.500/- respectively along with default stipulations.
2. That both the parties have filed the application for compounding
the offence before this Court and the parties had entered into compromise
with each other.
3. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal
Registrar of this Court. In compliance of the said order, the appellants and
complainant party were also appeared before the Principal Registrar. The
compromise was verified and report dated 22.06.2026 has been submitted
that accused / appellants and the complainant party have entered into
compromise with each other with mutual consent. There is no dispute
remaining between the accused / appellant and the complainant party. But as
per the aforesaid report, the offence under Sections 148, 307 read with
Section 149 and 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are non-compoundable.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant
No.1 was in jail from 17.05.2022 to 29.06.2022 during trial and thereafter
from the date of judgment i.e. 26.02.2026 he is continuously in jail;
and appellant No.2 was in jail from 12.06.2022 to 18.08.2022 during trial
and thereafter from the date of judgment i.e. 26.02.2026 he is continuously in
jail and the incident had taken place in May, 2022. Compromise has already
been done between the parties and therefore, while maintaining the
conviction, the jail sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone
by enhancing the fine amount on the basis of compromise.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent / State has opposed the prayer.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 09-07-2026
19:14:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18164
3 CRA-2892-2026
However, counsel for the objector has not objected and has fairly admitted
that they have compromised the case with the appellants.
6. It is stated that nevertheless the appellants have not impugned the
merits of conviction and has confined their arguments as to sentencing of the
appellants only on the basis of compromise application but still the appellate
court is of the view to examine the righteousness of conviction.
7. Having gone through the records of the case, it is found that in this
case, the injured persons are direct witnesses namely; Anil Kevat ((PW-2)
and complainant Dilip (PW-1), however, in spite of that the trial court has
convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 148, 323 read with
Section 149, 307 read with Section 149 and 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code,
1860 and has passed the punishment in aforesaid sections.
8. Considering the evidence of witnesses Anil Kevat (PW-2) and
complainant Dilip (PW-1) and the medical evidence, in the considered
opinion of this Court, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for
the aforesaid offences.
9. Now, the Court is turning to the sentencing part of non-
compoundable offence under Sections 148, 307 read with Section 149 and
506 (2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and effect of compromise placed by the
complainant / injured and accused persons. In the case of Narinder Singh and
Others v. State of Punjab And Another 2014 (6) SCC 466 relying on the
various judgments, the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-
compoundable case and quashed the criminal proceedings. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in para no.21 has observed as under: –
“21. However, we have some other cases decided
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 09-07-2026
19:14:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:181644 CRA-2892-2026
by this Court commenting upon the nature of offence
under Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case
(supra), FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149,
323, 307, 552 and 506 of the IPC. The matter was
investigated and final report was presented to the Court
under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had
even framed the charges. At that stage, settlement was
arrived at between parties. The court accepted the
settlement and quashed the proceedings, relying upon
the earlier judgment of this Court in Gian Singh v. State
of Punjab & Another 2012 AIR SCW 5333 wherein the
court had observed that inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code are of wide plentitude with no statutory
limitation and the guiding factors are: (1) to secure the
needs of justice, or (2) to prevent abuse of process of
the court. While doing so, commenting upon the
offences stated in the FIR, the court observed:
“Since the offences involved in this case are
of a personal nature and are not offences
against the society, we had enquired with
learned counsel appearing for the parties
whether there is any possibility of a
settlement. We are happy to note that due to
efforts made by learned counsel, parties have
seen reason and have entered into a
compromise.” This Court, thus, treated such
offences including one under section 307,
IPC were of a personal nature and not
offences against the society.”
10. Here, it is also poignant that this compromise has been filed at the
stage of appeal before this Court. On this aspect, the law laid down by
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
[AIR 2009 SC 675 ] is worth to be quoted here as under: –
“15. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to
order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the
code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our
judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing
substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the
parties is indeed a relevant circumstances which, the Court may
keep in mind.”
11. On this point, the view of Hon’ble Apex Court in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 09-07-2026
19:14:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18164
5 CRA-2892-2026
Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2017
Supreme Court 1745 is also worth
referring in the context of this case as under: –
“10. In series of decisions i.e. Bharath Singh vs. State of
M.P. and Ors., 1990 (Supp) SCC 62, Ramlal vs. State
of J & K, (1999) 2 SCC 213, Puttaswamy vs. State of
Karnataka and Anr, (2009) 1 SCC 711 , this Court
allowed the parties to compound the offence even
though the offence is a non-compoundable depending
on the facts and circumstances of each case. In some
cases this Court while imposing the fine amount
reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
11. What emerges from the above is that even if an
offence is not compoundable within the scope of
Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure the Court
may, in view of the compromise arrive at between the
parties, reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining
the conviction.”
12. Even this Court in Cr.A. No.268/2016 (Kanha @ Mahesh v. The
State of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 26.08.2017 as well as in Cr.A.
No.561/2010 (Radhakrishnan & 3 Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh )
decided on 18.04.2017 and in CRA No.604/2000 (Aaram singh vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh) decided on 08.08.2019 , Sohan Jangu & others vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh reported as 2023 Lawsuit (M.P) 392 , Kanhaiyalal & Ors.
vs. State of M.P. reported as 2023 Lawsuit (M.P) 509 , Devendra Snigh vs.
State of M.P. reported in 2023 Lawsuit (M.P) 781 has taken a similar view.
13. On this point, this Court is also inclined to quote the excerpt of the
judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Narayan
Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra ; [2021 (4) Crimes 42 (SC) ] which is as
under: –
“28. Giving punishment to the wrongdoer is the heart of
the criminal delivery system, but we do not find any
legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assess
the trial Court in meeting out the just punishment to the
accused facing trial before it after he is held guilty of theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 09-07-2026
19:14:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:181646 CRA-2892-2026
charges. Nonetheless, if one goes through the decisions
of this Court, it would appear that this Court takes into
account a combination of different factors while
exercising discretion in sentencing, that is
proportionality, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.
29. The compromise if entered at the later stage of the
incident or even after conviction can indeed be one of
the factor in interfering the sentence awarded to
commensurate with the nature of offence
being committed to avoid bitterness in the families of
the accused and the victim and it will always be better
to restore their relation, if possible, but the compromise
cannot be taken to be a solitary basis until the other
aggravating and mitigating factors also support and are
favourable to the accused for molding the sentence
which always has to be examined in the facts and
circumstances of the case on hand.”
14. As the offence under Sections 148, 307 read with Section 149 and
506 (2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not compoundable under Section 320
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not possible to pass the order
of acquittal on the basis of compromise but, it is by now well settled that
such a compromise can be taken into account for reduction of sentence. The
appellants and the complainant party are living in the same society, they are
residing happily since last so many years, they want to live with peace, and
therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment awarded
against the appellants may be reduced to the period already undergone.
15. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex
Court and by this Court and taking into consideration the fact that the
incident had taken place in the year 2022 and further the appellants had
already undergone the jail sentence of about six months and no fruitful
purpose would be served in keeping the appellants in jail even after the
compromise had entered into between the parties and hence, this Court is of
the considered opinion that while maintaining the conviction of appellants
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 09-07-2026
19:14:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18164
7 CRA-2892-2026
under Sections 148, 323 read with Section 149, 307 read with Section 149
and 506 (2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860, the jail sentence under the above
mentioned offences are reduced to the period already undergone and fine
imposed by the trial Court.
16. Their bail bond stands discharged, if any.
17. The judgment of learned trial Court regarding seized of the
property stands confirmed.
18. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for
necessary compliance.
19. Pending applications, if any, shall be closed.
20. With the aforesaid, the present criminal appeal stands disposed of.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
rcp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 09-07-2026
19:14:00
