Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Malviya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 October, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C No.32604/2018
(Satish Vs. State of MP)
Indore, dated : 05/10/2018:-
Shri Gajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
On the basis of compromise, the petitioner has invoked
inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for
quashing FIR no.597/2015 dated 22.08.2015 under sections 307,
294, 323, 506/34 of the IPC registered at police station
Madhonagar, District Ujjain.
2. Facts in brief are that on 22.08.2015, the complainant
Bhavar Singh Choudhary submitted a written application at 16:30
hours at the police station alleging that at about 03:30 hours when
he along with his friends Sanjay and Deepak coming back from
Kalidas Academy after attending a program and reached upto a
street behind the Kamla Nehru Road, accused Ganesh Patel and
Hakam Singh Patel met them. They abused them. When he
objected for the same, the petitioner Satish also reached there. He
instigated them to kill the complainant assuming that nothing
adverse will be happened and he will protect them. Ablazed by
the words of the petitioner, Hakimsingh Patel took out revolver
and shot at the complainant with intent to kill him. He ran from
the spot but they (offenders) chased him along with 4-6 other
companions. They caught and beat him by kicks and punches.
Many passerby gathered there. His friends somehow rescued him,
otherwise, they would have killed him. On receiving this written
complaint, the police registered the aforesaid crime against
Ganesh Patel, Hakim Patel and the petitioner Satish and their 4-6
other companions.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C No.32604/2018
(Satish Vs. State of MP)
2. The police investigated the case and submitted its report
concluding that no evidence regarding involvement of the
petitioner or alleged abatement by him was found in the
investigation. The police submitted charge sheet only against
Ganesh and Hakim Patel. Disagreeing with the conclusion of the
police, the CJM suo-moto took cognizance and issued notice to
the petitioner directing him to appear before the Court.
3. A cross FIR was also lodged at the same police station and
registered at crime no.596/2015 under sections 307, 506, 394,
147, 148, 149, 323 and 294 of the IPC.
4. In both the cases i.e. crime no.596/2015 and 597/2015,
parties compromised their dispute. The complainant of this case
filed an affidavit confirming compromise between the parties.
5. The petitioner wants to invoke extra ordinary powers of
this Court on the grounds that present case is individual in nature.
No public harm was caused. Offence was neither pre-planned nor
intended. It happened when both the parties, which belongs to
different political streams, suddenly met on the way. There was
only exchange of heated words between them, which was given
colour of attempt of murder. The petitioner was not present on the
spot. Allegation against him is only that when both the parties
were indulged in exchange of abusive words, the petitioner
reached there and abetted the co-accused persons, except this
limited alleged involvement, no other allegation has been made
against him. No injury was caused to the complainant by gunshot.
No empty cartridge was found on the spot. No fire arm was
seized from the petitioner. It is the case of the complainant that
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C No.32604/2018
(Satish Vs. State of MP)
after chasing him, Ganesh Patel and Hakam Singh Patel along
with 4-6 other companions caught and beat him by kicks and
fists. No allegation of use of any fire arm at that time, even when
they were having ample opportunity for the same have been
made. The petitioner neither used any force or any fire arm. Even
from Hakam Singh no fire arm was seized. The case is at very
initial stage i.e. for appearance of the accused and both the parties
have settled their scores and entered into the compromise.
Nothing could be achieve by dragging the case into the trial. It
would be a mere futile exercise. In Giansingh Vs. State of
Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh Vs.
State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after discussing the law at length, has settled the
same guideline, as to when in such cases which are not
compoundable under section 320 of the Cr.P.C particularly the
case involving the charge under section 307 of the IPC, the
proceedings can be quashed. The case of the present petitioner
squarely covered in the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Gyansingh and Narinder Singh case (Supra), therefore,
the FIR registered against the petitioner be quashed.
6. Learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer but has
not controverted the factual status of the case adduced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. I have gone through the FIR and the evidence collected by
the police during the investigation submitted before the Court
along with the charge sheet.
8. First, I would like to consider, the law laid down by the
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C No.32604/2018
(Satish Vs. State of MP)
Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding compromise/quashment of the
proceedings on the basis of compromise in non-compoundable
cases.
9. It is now well settled that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does
not control extraordinary powers of the High Court provided
under Section 482 of the Code. While replying the arguments
advanced by the petitioner that merely because an offence is non-
compoundable under Section 320 of the Code would not mean
that the High Court is denuded of its power to quash the
proceedings in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482
CrPC. Section 320(9) of the Code cannot limit or affect the
power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. Such a power
is recognized by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments.
(para 7 of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC
466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54, at page 471), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court made it clear in the following terms:
"8. We find that there are cases where the power of
the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to
quash the proceedings in those offences which are
uncompoundable has been recognized. The only
difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code,
no permission is required from the Court in those
cases which are compoundable though the Court has
discretionary power to refuse to compound the
offence. However, compounding under Section
320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor
offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when
the parties reach settlement in respect of the
offences enumerated in Section 320(2) of the Code,
compounding is permissible but it requires the
approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences
are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings
upon compromise is within the discretionary powers
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C No.32604/2018
(Satish Vs. State of MP)
of the High Court. In such cases, the power is
exercised under Section 482 of the Code and
proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers
were described by this Court in B.S. Joshi v. State
of Haryana [(20030) 4 SCC 675] which has been
followed and further explained/elaborated in so
many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the
discussion that follows hereinafter.
9. At the same time, one has to keep in mind the
subtle distinction between the power of
compounding of offences given to the court under
Section 320 of the Code and quashing of criminal
proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section
482 of the Code. Once it is found that compounding
is permissible only if a particular offence is covered
by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code and the
court in such cases is guided solitarily and squarely
by the compromise between the parties, insofar as
power of quashing under Section 482 of the Code is
concerned, it is guided by the material on record as
to whether the ends of justice would justify such
exercise of power, although the ultimate
consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of
indictment. Such a distinction is lucidly explained
by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gian Singh
v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303]. Lodha, J.
speaking for the Court, explained the difference between the two provisions in the following manner:
(SCC pp. 340-41, paras 57 & 59) "57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence.
They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP) compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
* * *
59. B.S. Joshi [(20030) 4 SCC 675], Nikhil Merchant [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Manoj Sharma [(2008) 16 SCC 1] and Shiji [(2011) 10 SCC 705] do illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so.
There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment."
10. In which type of cases, the proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 and what would be the parameters of accepting HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP) a prayer of quashing the criminal proceedings are discussed and determined by the Apex Court in the following paras of Narinder Singh case (supra):
10. Apart from narrating the interplay of Section 320 and Section 482 of the Code in the manner aforesaid, the Court in Gian Singh case also described the extent of power under Section 482 of the Code in quashing the criminal proceedings in those cases where the parties had settled the matter although the offences are not compoundable. In the first instance it was emphasised that the power under Section 482 of the Code is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in the Code for redressal of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised very sparingly and should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code. The Court also highlighted that in different situations, the inherent power may be exercised in different ways to achieve its ultimate objective.
Formation of opinion by the High Court before it exercises inherent power under Section 482 on either of the twin objectives, (i) to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or (ii) to secure the ends of justice, is a sine qua non.
11. As to under what circumstances the criminal proceedings in a non-compoundable case be quashed when there is a settlement between the parties, the Court provided the following guidelines: (Gian Singh case, SCC pp. 340-41, para 58) "58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the facts that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP) opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well- being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP) of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard- and-fast category can be prescribed."
12. Thereafter, the Court summed up the legal position in the following words: (Gian Singh case, SCC pp. 342-43, para 61) "61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or an FIR or a complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP) However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act, or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc., cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP) injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 the 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 proceeding." (emphasis supplied)
13. The Court in Gian Singh case (supra) was categorical that in respect of serious offences or other offences of mental depravity or offence of merely dacoity under special statute, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servant while working in that capacity. The mere settlement between the parties would not be a ground to quash the proceedings by the High Court and inasmuch as settlement of such heinous crime cannot have imprimatur of the Court.
11. Thus, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has made it clear that powers of the Court u/s 320 and 482 are totally distinct and different from each other. Section 320 does control or bar the powers of the Court u/s 482 and that use of power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in the cases where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP)
12. Specifically considering as to what view should be taken in the case of attempt to murder punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, where the parties amicably settle their scores. In para 13, the Court stated that:
13. The question is as to whether an offence under Section 307 IPC falls within the aforesaid parameters. The first limb of this question is to reflect on the nature of the offence. The charge against the accused in such cases is that he had attempted to take the life of another person (victim). On this touchstone, should we treat it as a crime of serious nature so as to fall in the category of heinous crime, is the poser. Finding an answer to this question becomes imperative as the philosophy and jurisprudence of sentencing is based thereupon. If it is heinous crime of serious nature then it has to be treated as a crime against the society and not against the individual alone. Then it becomes the solemn duty of the State to punish the crime-doer. Even if there is a settlement/compromise between the perpetrator of crime and the victim, that is of no consequence.
22. Thus, I find that in certain circumstances, this Court has approved the quashing of proceedings under Section 307 IPC whereas in some other cases, it is held that as the offence is of serious nature such proceedings cannot be quashed. Though in each of the aforesaid cases the view taken by this Court may be justified on its own facts, at the same time this Court owes an explanation as to why two different approaches are adopted in various cases. The law declared by this Court in the form of judgments becomes binding precedent for the High Courts and the subordinate courts, to follow under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Stare decision is the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP) fundamental principle of judicial decision- making which requires "certainty" too in law so that in a given set of facts the course of action which law shall take is discernible and predictable. Unless that is achieved, the very doctrine of stare decision will lose its significance. The related objective of the doctrine of stare decision is to put a curb on the personal preferences and priors of individual Judges. In a way, it achieves equality of treatment as well, inasmuch as two different persons faced with similar circumstances would be given identical treatment at the hands of law. It has, therefore, support from the human sense of justice as well. The force of precedent in the law is heightened, in the words of Karl Llewellyn, by "that curious, almost universal sense of justice which urges that all men are to be treated alike in like circumstances".
13. In para 26 & 27 of the Narinder Singh case (supra), the Court considered effects of timings in filing the compromise:
"26. Having said so, we would hasten to add that though it is a serious offence as the accused person(s) attempted to take the life of another person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever there is a quarrel between the parties leading to physical commotion and sustaining of injury by either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as well. Therefore, only because FIR/charge- sheet incorporates the provision of Section 307 IPC would not, by itself, be a ground to reject the petition under Section 482 of the Code and refuse to accept the settlement between the parties. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP) or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely, whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used, etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties. On the other hand, on the basis of prima facie assessment of the aforesaid circumstances, if the High Court forms an opinion that provisions of Section 307 IPC were unnecessarily included in the charge-sheet, the Court can accept the plea of compounding of the offence based on settlement between the parties.
27. At this juncture, we would also like to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of the offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous paragraph. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the IO under Section 173 CrPC is also placed before the Court it would become the bounden duty of the Court to go into the said report and the evidence collected, particularly the medical evidence relating to injury, etc. sustained by the victim. This aspect, however, would be examined along with another important consideration, namely, in HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP) view of settlement between the parties, whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings and whether possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. If the Court finds the answer to this question in affirmative, then also such a case would be a fit case for the High Court to give its stamp of approval to the compromise arrived at between the parties, inasmuch as in such cases no useful purpose would be served in carrying out the criminal proceedings which in all likelihood would end in acquittal, in any case.
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I 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:
29.1. 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. 29.2. 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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP) 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.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the 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.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly 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.
29.5. 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. 29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP) 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 latter 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 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. 29.7. 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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP) 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 to 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."
14. In the present case where the fight had occurred on the spot in the heat of the moment, inasmuch as both sides were verbally fighting when the petitioners entered in the scene and alleged incident the co-accused persons for assent assault. This was more of a crime against the individual than against the society at large. Therefore, in view of the non-controverted factual matrix of this case, in the background of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Giansingh and Narinder (Supra), it appears to me that as both the parties have amicably settled their dispute, allegation against the petitioner are not such, which would make HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.32604/2018 (Satish Vs. State of MP) the offence alleged against him harming the society or it would be treated as the offence against the State, which necessitates the punishment for wrong doer, therefore, in my considered opinion, this petition deserves to be and is allowed hereby.
15. The FIR No.597/2015 dated 22.08.2015 under sections 307, 294, 323, 506/34 of the IPC registered at police station Madhonagar, District Ujjain is hereby quashed.
(Virender Singh) Judge Sourabh Digitally signed by SOURABH YADAV Date: 2018.10.06 10:41:17 +05'30'