HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
Cr.R No.3673 of 2018
(Jahid S/o Abdul Sattar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the
Shri Navendu Joshi, learned counsel for the
Complainant Deepa Bhojwani is also present in person
along with her counsel Shri Navendu Joshi.
Head on IA Nos.6003/2018 and 6004/2018, applications
for granting leave to compromise and to accept compromise.
Entire record was sent to the Principal Registrar of this
Bench for verification of compromise, who after verification
submitted his report stating that both the parties are
competent to compromise the case in all respect. They have
compromised the case voluntarily, without any pressure,
threat, corrosion, inducement or undue influence from either
The complainant is present before the Court along with
his counsel and she has submitted that due to intervention of
close relatives and elderly people of the village, they have
amicably settled the dispute and now she does not want to
prosecute the case as she has no grievance towards the
The petitioner is convicted for the commission of the
offence punishable under section 354 and 323 of the IPC.
Section 323 of the IPC is compoundable, therefore, leave is
granted and compromise is accepted.
Consequently, the impugned order of the learned Trial
Court which is upheld by the learned Appellate Court is set
aside to the extend it relates to the conviction of the petitioner
under section 323 of the IPC. The petitioner is acquitted from
the charge under section 323 of the IPC.
So far as the offence under section 354 of the IPC is
concerned, the leave cannot be granted as on the date of
offence i.e. dated 10.02.2011 offence under section 354 of the
IPC was not compoundable as per Section 23 (ii) of
Amendment Act No.5 of 2009 w.e.f 31.12.2009, therefore, the
compromise filed by the parties is disallowed qua the offence
punishable under section 354 of the IPC.
At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that he does not want to press merits of the case,
therefore, with the consent of the parties, the petition is heard
This petition is filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the
Cr.P.C by the petitioner, who has been convicted by the
learned JMFC, Ratlam in Criminal Case No.3989/2011 vide
order dated 06.09.2017 for the offence under section 354, 341
and 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months’ R.I., 1
month’s R.I. and 1 month’s R.I. and fine of Rs.100/-, Rs.200/-
and Rs.100/-. The learned Appellate Court vide judgment
dated 02.07.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.94/2017
acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 341 of
the IPC and confirmed the sentence under Sections 354 and
323 of IPC.
Shorts facts of the case is that, on 10.12.2011, at about
9.30 a.m., the prosecutrix went to gym, where the petitioner
came and forcibly caught her hand with intent to outrage her
modesty. When she shouted, her son and other people came
there. Seeing them the accused attacked them also and fled
from the spot. On this report, the Police registered Crime
No.491/2011 under Sections 341, 354 and 323 of IPC against
the accused and after conclusion of trial, the learned Trial
Court held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him as stated
The petitioner filed appeal against the judgment of the
Trial Court, which was rejected by the learned Appellate
Court qua the charges under Section 354 323 of IPC and
partly allowed it qua the charge under Section 341 of IPC.
Out of the offence, he was awarded punishment, the
parties compromised the case and the petitioner is acquitted
from the charge under section 323 of the IPC as stated above.
For rest of the charge i.e. under section 354 of the IPC,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not
want to press merits of the case. His prayer is limited to the
sentence awarded to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that both the
parties are resident of the same village. Elderly people of the
village and their relatives mediated the dispute between the
parties and they have amicably settled their dispute. The
prosecutrix has filed the compromise, which is also accepted
by the Court and only for the technical reasons that
compromise could not be accepted with regard to the offence
of use of criminal force with intent to outrage modesty of a
woman, as it is non-compoundable, the same is not accepted.
The incident took place in the year 2011 and since then he is
regularly attending the Court and facing the trial and other
proceedings. No other criminal case whether prior or after the
incident has ever been registered against him.
The incident happened all of a sudden. Actually this
was a result of dispute arose due to accident of motorcycle
which was given colour of outraging of modesty of the
prosecutrix. Petitioner is 35 years old having small children
and only breadwinner of his family comprising wife and a
minor son depending on him for their livelihood. Due to his
incarceration whole family will suffer. No purpose would be
achieved by putting him in jail, therefore, his sentence may be
reduced to the period already undergone which is more than a
month more precisely 1 month and 12 days till date.
Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer but
has not controverted the facts mentioned by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
as averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner coupled
with the age of the prosecutrix, nature of the incident and
compromise between the parties, in my considered opinion,
ends of justice would be sub-served by reducing the sentence
of the petitioner to the period already undergone.
Consequently, the petition is partly allowed.
Conviction of the petitioner under section 354 of the IPC is
maintained. So far as his sentence is concerned, he is awarded
rigorous imprisonment for the period already undergone along
with fine imposed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed
by the learned Appellate Court.
He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any
With the aforesaid, the present petition stands partly
allowed and disposed off.
Digitally signed by Neeraj Sarvate
Date: 2018.08.15 12:12:02 +05’30’