Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj Parmar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 April, 2019
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC.6904/2019.
(Pankaj Parmar and Others Vs. State of M.P.)
GWALIOR; dated 10.04.2019.
Shri V.D.Sharma, learned counsel, for the petitioners.
Shri H.D.Mishra, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Awdhesh Singh Tomar, learned counsel, for the respondent No.2.
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of First Information Report with all consequential proceedings arising out of Crime No.292 of 2018 registered at Police Station Malanpur district Bhind for offences punishable under Sections 363, 376, 120(B) of the IPC and 5/6 of the POCSO Act.
During pendency of this petition, an application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C was preferred by the litigating parties vide I.A.No.1177 of 2019 in which, the parties intended to settle the matter. Affidavits of the petitioner and parents of the respondent No.2 are also preferred. Principal Registrar of this court has verified identity of the parties and their intent.
It is the submission of the parties that as per the prosecution story an improbable event has been alleged in the FIR. Brother of the Prosecutrix made a complaint at Police Station Endori about disappearance of his sister, on which, search was carried out. In the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.6904/2019.
(Pankaj Parmar and Others Vs. State of M.P.) FIR, it is alleged that some unknown person has taken her. Later on, she was recovered from Bhopal and her statement was recorded by police in which, she submitted that she went along with petitioner No.1 Pankaj who is her first cousin (son of her maternal uncle) and referred allegations of rape first time in her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In fact, the police did not consider her statement worth credence because of her attitude, behaviour and thought process which was not looking sincere enough and she was looking childish. She wanted to marry her first cousin and therefore, under the heat of passion, she made a statement which is implicative in nature. She wanted to marry her brother which would have been incestual relationship. Therefore, both families came under shock because of declaration of the Prosecutrix. It appears that good sense prevailed over the Prosecutrix as well as other family members and she got married on 8th March, 2019. Although allegation of rape and POCSO Act are available on record but on close scrutiny of evidence, it appear that it is a result of incestual infatuation and therefore, under the influence of that feeling, she wanted to marry her first cousin and when he declined the offer, she registered the instant FIR.
Both the parties agreed upon the proposition that continuance of case would be embarrassment to the Prosecutrix as well as to the petitioners in which, petitioner No.1 is the main culprit, petitioner No.2 is his sister and petitioner No.3 is his Aunty (Chachi). 3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.6904/2019.
(Pankaj Parmar and Others Vs. State of M.P.) Prosecutrix has also got married to someone else and to save her from any domestic/nuptial embarrassment, case be considered for settlement and be allowed accordingly.
Both the parties expressed their desire to serve National/Social cause, because they realized that they used institution of Police/Prosecution/Court for resolution of their dispute and they owe certain responsibilities as citizens.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State although opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact narrated by the parties.
In the cases of Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana & another (AIR 2008 SC 1968), Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2008 SC 1969), Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika & another (2011) 10 SCC 705, Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, B.S.Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that even in non-compoundable offence on the basis of compromise criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilised in other material cases.
Normally, this court would not entertain the matter where allegations of rape under Section 376 of the I.P.C and ingredients of POCSO Act are alleged. This court is also aware of the legal position 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.6904/2019.
(Pankaj Parmar and Others Vs. State of M.P.) that an offence under Section 376 is a grievous offence and is considered the offence against the society at large but more injustice would be caused if the prosecution of petitioners is allowed to continue because, petitioner No.1 is first cousin of the Prosecutrix and it appears that both the parties or at least Prosecutrix had harboured an incestual affection towards petitioner No.1 and when Prosecutrix did not get response as per her feeling, then she registered the case against her own brother. Peculiar fact situation of the case and factual matrix indicates that continuance of trial would be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the petitioners and to the complainant as well. Now, she is a married lady, therefore, continuance of case and her regular appearance before the trial court as a witness may create domestic incompatibility and therefore, it is better that the dispute be buried deep, once and for all.
The Uttaranchal High Court in the cases of Mohit and others Vs. Sate of Uttarakhand and others, decided on 6 th April 2017 and Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Deepak Vs. Sate of Haryana and another, decided on 19 th January, 2018 while dealing with similar fact situation, allowed to settle the matter of offence related to Section 376 IPC, POCSO and Atrocities Act 1989 (Special statutes) because of the necessity in the given fact situation.
This court also feels that in the interest of justice, it is better that both the parties must resolve the dispute so that their respective 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.6904/2019.
(Pankaj Parmar and Others Vs. State of M.P.) families can be saved and they may not face further embarrassment or harassment in any manner. Here the facts warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction to bring peace and harmony to both the families and no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings any further. Therefore, in peculiar fact situation, the matter is allowed to be settled. This case cannot be treated as binding precedent to claim parity.
At this juncture, this Court records appreciation for the petitioners by which they thought about national cause.
Resultantly, the application preferred by the petitioners and respondent No.2 (I.A.No.1177 of 2019) is hereby allowed and they are permitted to settle the matter subject to deposit of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand only) each by petitioners and respondent No.2 in the form of Army Central Welfare fund A/c No. 520101236373338 of Corporation Bank, Chandani Chowk, Delhi within fifteen days from today and the FIR registered at Crime the FIR 292 of 2018 under Sections 363, 376, 120(B) of the IPC and 5/6 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Malanpur district Bhind shall stand quashed with all consequential proceedings. In case of non submission of deposit receipt of Rs.5000/- each by petitioners and respondent No.2 in favour of Army Central Welfare Fund as referred above within fifteen days, this order shall not remain in operation.
Although the petition stands disposed of but this case shall be 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.6904/2019.
(Pankaj Parmar and Others Vs. State of M.P.) placed before this Court on 09-05-2019 under the caption "Direction" for perusal of this Court.
Principal Registrar of this Court is directed to send copy of this order to the Competent Authority (Administration) Army Headquarters, New Delhi for information.
Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms subject to aforesaid conditions.
C.C. as per rules.
(Anand Pathak)
R. K. SHARMA
2019.04.15 Judge
Rks.
17:13:00
+05'30'