SURAJ SINGH GUJAR & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 782 · Decided: 30-08-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[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 offenc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.