Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sudhanshu Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2023
Author: Rajendra Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3938 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. SUDHANSHU SHUKLA S/O SHRI SHAMBHU
PRASAD SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FARMER, R/O SHUKLA COLONY,
NEW KHUTEHI, DHEKHA, P.S. CIVIL LINE,
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHAMBHU PRASAD SHUKLA S/O SHRI JAMUNA
PRASAD SHUKLA, OCCUPATION: FARMER, R/O
SHUKLA COLONY, NEW KHUTEHI, DHEKHA, P.S.
CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. UMA DEVI SHUKLA W/O SHRI SAMBHU SHUKLA,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/O SHUKLA
COLONY, NEW KHUTEHI, DHEKHA, P.S. CIVIL
LINE, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MAYA SHUKLA W/O SHRI AJAY SHUKLA,
OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT TEACHER, R/O
SHUKLA COLONY, NEW KHUTEHI, DHEKHA, P.S.
CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. KAVITA PANDEY W/O SHRI UPENDRA PANDEY,
OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT TEACHER, R/O
MAUHARI, KATRA, P.S. AMARPATAN, DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. AJAY KUMAR SHUKLA S/O SHRI SHAMBHU
PRASAD SHUKLA, OCCUPATION: FARMER, R/O
SHUKLA COLONY, NEW KHUTEHI, DHEKHA, P.S.
CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
7. PUNEET SHUKLA S/O SHRI SHAMBHU PRASAD
SAN
SHUKLA, OCCUPATION: FARMER, R/O SHUKLA
COLONY, NEW KHUTEHI, DHEKHA, P.S. CIVIL
Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY
Date: 2023.04.11 17:52:15 IST LINE, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI MANISH TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
MAHILA POLICE STATION, REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. SHIPRA TRIPATHI W/O SUDHANSHU
SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
H O U S E W I F E , R/O PADMADHAR COLONY,
DHEKHA, DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY SMT. RANJANA AGNIHOTRI - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI ASHISH GIRI - ADVOCATE)
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicants seeking quashment of order dated 10.01.2023 passed in RCT No.407/2016 and FIR registered vide Crime No.37/2015 at Police Station- Mahila Thana, District-Rewa, for offence under Sections under Sections 498-A of IPC, 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Parties have entered into compromise and want to close the proceedings by way of settlement. Vide order dated 23.01.2023, this Court has directed the parties to record their statements in respect of compromise application before Registrar (Judicial-II) and in compliance of that, Registrar (Judicial-II) has recorded statements of the parties and prepared report dated 10.02.2023.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties are family Signature Not Verified SAN members to each other and now, relation between them are cordial. They have Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY Date: 2023.04.11 17:52:15 IST entered into an agreement pursuant to their dispute relating to demand of dowry 3 as well as cruelty, said to have been committed by the applicants. Now, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and divorce already took place between applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Now, the complainant has no grievance with the applicants and she has recorded her consent before the Registrar (Judicial-II). The parties have also preferred the compromise before the trial Court which has been rejected by the trial Court only on the ground of Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act being non compoundable. Learned counsel also relied upon the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466. With the aforesaid submissions, he prays that the petition may be allowed on the basis of compromise.
O n the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant does not oppose the prayer made by the applicants' counsel.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the petition on the ground that offence under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is non- compoundable offence.
Heard.
According to the report, it appears that the applicants and complainant are willing to resolve their dispute voluntarily without any threat or inducement and now their relation is cordial.
It is true that the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is compoundable, however, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is non compoundable offence. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), has held as under :
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion Signature Not Verified SAN can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different Date: 2023.04.11 17:52:15 IST 4 from the power given to a criminal court for compounding t h e 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 oIt is true that the offence under Section 420 of IPC is compoundablen 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 predominately 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 opperession and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Date: 2023.04.11 17:52:15 IST 5 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.
Further, in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we 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 secure:
(i) ends of justice, or Signature Not Verified
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.SAN Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY
Date: 2023.04.11 17:52:15 IST While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
629.3. 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, pa rtic ula rly 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 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/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons Signature Not Verified used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by SAN the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY Date: 2023.04.11 17:52:15 IST of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the 7 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/investiga HIt is true that the offence under Section 420 of IPC is compoundation. 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 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 Signature Not Verified SAN of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime."
Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY Date: 2023.04.11 17:52:15 IST 8In the light of the aforesaid compromise which has taken place between the parties and looking to the fact that the complainant and applicants have settled their dispute amicably and that they have been judicially separated, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the matter pending especially when the grievance of the complainant has been satisfied by the present applicants. The dispute involved in the case, prima-facie seems to be inter-family in nature.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 10.01.2023 is hereby set-aside and FIR registered vide Crime No.37/2015 at Police Station- Mahila Thana, District-Rewa, for offence under Sections under Sections 498-A of IPC, 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and consequential proceedings thereof, are hereby quashed.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE Prachi Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY Date: 2023.04.11 17:52:15 IST