SURAJ SINGH GUJAR & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 782, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
[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