Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hanumant Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2014

1                                           M.Cr.C.No.5926/2014

           Hanumant Singh Vs. State of M.P. & another
1/9/2014
      Mr. Pradeep Katare, Advocate for the petitioner.
      Ms.     N.Saxena,   Public   Prosecutor    for     respondent

No.1/State.

Mr. M.S.Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.65/14 under Section 394 of IPC read with Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act at police Station, Amayan, Distt. Bhind, and its subsequent criminal proceedings.

As per prosecution case, complainant Ratiram was going to load sand in his truck bearing registration number MP06 HC 2291 to Ruhiraghat. He was driving the truck and Ramphool was sitting on the conductor seat and Ramniwas and Ramvaran were sitting on the back seats. As soon as the complainant reached Mau Amayana Road, four unknown persons, who were hiding their face, came, one of them was armed with gun and others were carrying stone and Danda. The person who was carrying gun fired a shot which piercing the front side of body of truck hit on the leg of the complainant. The complainant stopped the truck, then the accused persons came near and took out cash of Rs.12,800/- from the pocket of the complainant. Thereafter, they ran away.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 complainant/respondent No.2 Ratiram has 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 3 M.Cr.C.No.5926/2014 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 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 4 M.Cr.C.No.5926/2014 determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked."

Considering that parties have settled their dispute, there is no likelihood of recording a conviction against the petitioner, his trial 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 in Shiji alias Pappu (supra), this petition deserves to be allowed.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered at Crime No.65/14 under Section 394 of IPC read with Sections 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act at police Station, Amayan, Distt. Bhind, and its subsequent criminal proceedings are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner.

(D.K.Paliwal) Judge ms/-