Madhya Pradesh High Court
Subhash Parashar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 June, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.16026/2021
(Subhash Parashar vs. State of M.P. and anr.)
Gwalior, Dated : 11.06.2021
Heard through videoconferencing.
Shri Suresh Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Naval Kishore Gupta, learned PP, for the respondent
/State.
Shri Rajesh Sharma counsel for the respondent No.2/Complainant.
With the consent of parties the matter is finally heard. By this petition the petitioner seeks invocation of the provision of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered as Crime No.168/2014 at Police Station Mahila Thana Gwalior for the offence under Section 292 of IPC and its further consequences i.e.RCT No.2418640/14 pending before JMFC Gwalior.
During pendency of the proceedings an application was filed under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. to the effect that parties have arrived at amicable settlement.
Considering the aforesaid, the matter was sent to the Principal Registrar of this Court. The parties presented themselves before Principal Registrar and their statements got recorded on 3.5.2021. The Principal Registrar has opined as follows:
"According to Sec.320 of Cr.P.C.the Offences u/S. 509 of IPC has already been compounded by the trial Court and offence under Section 292 of IPC is not compoundable."2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.16026/2021 (Subhash Parashar vs. State of M.P. and anr.) The Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika & Another, 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 69, has been ruled that where there is no chance of recording conviction against the accused persons and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility, the criminal case registered against the accused persons though it may not be compoundable can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Further, the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 in para 61, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or 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. 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, 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.16026/2021 (Subhash Parashar vs. State of M.P. and anr.) 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 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".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in latest pronouncement in Cr. Appeal No.1090 of 2019 (Manjit Singh Vs. Sate of Punjab and Others) while dealing with the case of compromise, has held as under :
"In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions".
Present case is the case of matrimonial dispute between the parties. Compromise has been entered into between the parties and they have submitted aforesaid application which was sent for verification before Principal Registrar of this Court who has submitted his report on 3.5.2021. Statements of parties were recorded before the Principal Registrar wherein, they have 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.16026/2021 (Subhash Parashar vs. State of M.P. and anr.) categorically stated that they have entered into compromise and have decided not to prosecute the criminal case and all other cases as their marriage has already being dissolved and they are residing separately.
The Principal Registrar of this Court has also observed that after verifying from complainant/respondent No.2 Smt.Shailja Parashar, she has submitted that she compromised with accused petitioner Subhash Parashar voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion. Although Section 292 of IPC is non- compoundable but taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties and is being amicably settled between them and now the parties are residing separately, in the interest of justice, compromise application filed before this Court is allowed.
Resultantly, the FIR in crime no.168/2014 and consequential proceedings of RCT No.2418640/14 pending before JMFC, Gwalior are hereby quashed.
This petition is allowed. No order as to the costs. CC as per rules.
(Vishal Mishra) Judge van SMT VANDANA VERMA 2021.06.14 17:25:03
-07'00'