Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chunna @ Dharmendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2014

1                                               M.Cr.C.No.4286/2014

   Chhunna @ Dharmendra & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
21/7/2014
         Mr. M.S.Rawat, Advocate for the petitioners.
         Ms. Nutan Saxena, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/

State.

Mr. Pradeep Katare, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.111/14 under Sections 294, 323, 506-B, 147 of IPC at police Station Mau, Distt. Bhind, and its subsequent criminal proceedings.

As per prosecution case, the nephew of the complainant Harikishore had gone to hand pump for fetching water. Chhunna stopped him. When Harikishore objected, petitioners came armed with Lathi and Farsa and gave beating to him. When complainant came to save him, he was also beaten.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that parties have settled their dispute and filed an application for compromise which has been verified by the Principal Registrar under the direction of this Court.

Report of Principal Registrar perused. It is reported by the Principal Registrar of this Court that he is satisfied that Jandel Singh and Harikishore have compromised voluntarily without any fear or force.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiji alias Pappu and others (2011) 10 SCC 705, has observed in para 17 and 18 as under :

"17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. That power can in our opinion be exercised in case where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in case where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non-

compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C.

18. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under 3 M.Cr.C.No.4286/2014 Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of and appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked."

Considering that parties have settled their dispute, a cross- case is registered against the complainant party, there is no likelihood of recording a conviction, trial of the petitioners would be a futile exercise and continuance of it would tantamount to abuse of process of law and also the decision of the Apex Court 4 M.Cr.C.No.4286/2014 in Shiji alias Pappu (supra), this petition deserves to be allowed.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered at Crime No.111/14 under Sections 294, 323, 506-B, 147 of IPC at police Station Mau, Distt. Bhind, and its subsequent criminal proceedings are hereby quashed.

(D.K.Paliwal) Judge ms/-