Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prateek Joshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 September, 2019
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-1- MCRC No.39102/2019
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
MCRC NO.39102/2019
(Prateek Joshi s/o Vivek Joshi vs. State of M.P & another)
20.09.2019 (INDORE):
Shri Jalaj Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Arvind Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.
Shri Gaurav Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2.
Heard.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashment of the FIR dated 24.07.2019 registered as Crime No.140/19 at Cyber Cell, Indore on the basis of the compromise arrived at with respondent No.2/complainant.
2. Respondent No.2 lodged the aforesaid FIR alleging that the petitioner along with his friend Tanay Singh Chouhan purchased some material from his shop and made payment of Rs.5000/- through PayTM. He received a message from the mobile number of the petitioner in respect of the payment of Rs.5000/-, however, the amount was not credited in his account, therefore, the petitioner and his friend committed the offence of cheating.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a student and pursuing his studies in Engineering Course and he has every chance of getting -2- MCRC No.39102/2019 placement in reputed companies. If he is proceeded with enquiry and registration of criminal case his future will be spoiled. Although he has made the payment to the complainant but due to technical fault the amount could not be credit in the account of the complainant and he has no intention to cheat him.
4. Shri Saxnea, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that though the amount was not credited in his account though PayTM but later on he has received the amount in question, therefore, he has no grievance if the FIR filed against the petitioner is quashed.
5. Except the offences under sections 467 & 468 all other offences against the petitioner are compoundable. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & another (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that once the compromise has been arrived at and the complainant has no grievance then the trial would be a futile exercise because the accused cannot be punished, therefore, although the offence is not compoundable but the same can be quahsed under section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. This Court in the case of Ajit Mansharamani & others vs. State of M.P (MCRC No.25143/2019 dated 04.09.2019) has held as under:
7. It appears from the record that it was a family dispute between the parties, which was amicably settled by them and both the parties have entered into compromise deed. Respondents in their reply have submitted that now they have no grievance against the application and have no objection in quashment of the aforesaid FIR. Applicant No.1-Ajit Mansharamani and -3- MCRC No.39102/2019 Respondent No.2-Deepak Mansharmani were present in person and have informed this Court that they have amicably settled their disputed and entered into compromise. Undisputedly, offence punishable under Sections 467,468, 471 of the IPC, 1860 are non-
compoundable, however, Hon'ble the apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in(2012)10 SCC 303 has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes, by observing as under.
61. 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 proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings 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 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 proceedings."
08. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in the judgment of Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014)6 SCC 466. The pertinent observations of the Apex Court in reads as under:-
"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 482of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
(I) 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, -4- MCRC No.39102/2019 this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
(II)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
(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.
(III) Such a power is not 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 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 thebasis of compromise between the victim and the offender. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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.
(V) 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.
(VI) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against theindividual 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 -5- MCRC No.39102/2019 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 later 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.
(VII) 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 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 a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in -6- MCRC No.39102/2019 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."
09. Taking into account the law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, as the compromise between the parties was arrived at, thus continuation of the prosecution in the matter will be a futile exercise, which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 of 'the Code' can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and wasteful exercise by the Courts below. More so, offence in question are not against the society, but merely affect the victim.
7. In view of the above, considering the compromise arrived at between the parties and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the petition is allowed and the FIR registered at Crime No.140/19 at Cyber Cell, Indore qua the petitioner is hereby quashed.
C.c as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 2019.09.24 12:17:22 +05'30' hk/