Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajit Mansharamani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 September, 2019
Author: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
Bench: Sunil Kumar Awasthi
M.Cr.C. No.25143/2019 1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.25143/2019
(Ajit Mansharamani & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated:04/09/2019
Smt. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Pranay Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.2 &3/Objector.
Applicant No.1-Ajit Mansharamani and Respondent No.2-
Deepak Mansharamani were present in person and have been
identified by their counsel and they have verified the factum of
compromise. Respondent No.2 submits before this Court that he has
no objection in quashing the FIR bearing Crime No. 263/2019
registered at Police-Station-MIG Colony, District-Indore against the
applicants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471, 210 and 120(B) of the IPC.
ORDER
Applicants have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code'), praying for quashment of First Information Report bearing crime No.263/2019, registered at police station - MIG Colony, District - Indore, against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 210, 120-B of IPC, 1860.
02. Relevant facts, briefly stated are that Complainant/Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint along with an application under Section 156(3) of 'the Code' against the applicants Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 07/09/2019 14:06:47 M.Cr.C. No.25143/2019 2 alleging that the applicant No.1 and the Respondent No.2 are the directors and share holders of M/s. Perfect Boxes Pvt. Ltd and the entire management of the company was in control of application No.1. It is further alleged that the applicants have transferred the shares of the complainant in favour of applicant No.3-Kabir Mansharamani. Therefore, the said documents were filed before the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad along with an appeal for restoration of the name of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the register of the R.O.C, Gwalior. Learned trial Court took cognizance of the complaint and allowed the application filed u/s. 156(3) of 'the Code' and directed the respondent No.1/Police Station to make an investigation in the matter and submit the report. Respondent No.1 after due investigation, filed a report before the Court and on due consideration, trial Court ordered for registration of FIR. In compliance of the said order, Police registered FIR against the applications.
03. Applicant No.2 filed a civil suit against the respondent No.2 for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 filed a suit against applicant No.1 in the year 2014 with respect to the same property for possession based on title and mesne profits. During the pendency of the aforesaid suits, the applications and the respondent Nos. 2 &3 have amicably settled their disputes out of Court and entered into a compromise deed. In compliance of the aforesaid compromise deed, the civil suits filed by the parties have been withdrawn.
04. Respondent No.2 filed a reply of the petition, in which he stated that the applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 have entered into amicable settlement, vide compromise deed dated 20/05/2019 and there is no dispute remaining between the parties and he has no grievance against the applicants, therefore, he has no objection as such Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 07/09/2019 14:06:47 M.Cr.C. No.25143/2019 3 quashment would support resolution of the family dispute and will avoid unwanted multiple litigations between the applicants and respondent No.2.
05. Learned counsel for the applicant and respondent Nos.2 &3 have submitted that both the parties have settled their disputes amicably & entered into compromise and Respondent Nos.2 &3 does not wish to pursue the said FIR lodged against the applications. The offence involved in the matter is of personal in nature and not against the society, therefore they prayed for quashment of the First Information Report bearing crime No.263/2019, registered at police station - MIG Colony, District - Indore, against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 472, 210, 120-B of IPC, 1860. Since, both the parties have entered into compromise, continuation of the said FIR will amount to sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court and will also result in harassment to the parties.
06. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
07. It appears from the record that it was a family dispute between the parties, which was amicably settled by them and both the parties have entered into compromise deed. Respondents in their reply have submitted that now they have no grievance against the application and have no objection in quashment of the aforesaid FIR. Applicant No.1-Ajit Mansharamani and Respondent No.2-Deepak Mansharmani were present in person and have informed this Court that they have amicably settled their disputed and entered into compromise. Undisputedly, offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, 1860 are non-compoundable, however, Hon'ble the apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes, by observing as under Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 07/09/2019 14:06:47 M.Cr.C. No.25143/2019 4
"61. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings."
08. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in the judgment of Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014)6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court in reads as under:-
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
(I) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
(II) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
(III) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 07/09/2019 14:06:47 M.Cr.C. No.25143/2019 5 like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
(IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 07/09/2019 14:06:47 M.Cr.C. No.25143/2019 6 Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
(VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not.
Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."
09. Taking into account the law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, as the compromise between the parties was arrived at, thus continuation of the prosecution in the matter will be a futile exercise, which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 of 'the Code' can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and wasteful exercise by the Courts Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 07/09/2019 14:06:47 M.Cr.C. No.25143/2019 7 below. More so, offence in question are not against the society, but merely affect the victim.
10. Accordingly, the prayer for quashment is hereby allowed and the First Information Report No.263/2019, registered at police station - MIG Colony, District - Indore, for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 210, 120-B of IPC, 1860 against the applicants is hereby quashed.
11. Resultantly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.25143/2019 stands allowed.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(S. K. AWASTHI) Judge sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 07/09/2019 14:06:47