Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49857 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
ANKIT YADAV S/O SHRI MUKESH YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NONE 3147,
CHOTA TELI MOHALLA, MHOW, DISTT. INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(APPLICANT IN PERSON )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THRU. PS. ANNAPURNA
1.
DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
VICTIM X THR OFFICER IN CHARGE THR
2. OFFICER IN CHARGE P.S. ANNAPURNA DIST
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( STATE BY MS. VARSHA THAKUR GA 0
( RESPONDENT 2 BY MS. PRIYA )
_____________________________________________________________________
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR dated 08/12/2020 registered at Crime no 449/2020 at police station - Annapurna, Indore for the offence under sections 376, 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short "IPC") and sections 3(I) (w)(ii) and 3(ii)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities )Act, 1989 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 3/29/2023 5:02:15 PM 2 ( in short " SC & ST Act") and all subsequent proceedings thereto including special case pending before the Special Judge, ( under " SC & ST Act), Indore.
2. Brief fact of the case is that on 26/11/2022, respondent no. 2 / prosecutrix lodged FIR at police station - Annapurna, Indore stating that she knew the petitioner since her childhood. He is gym trainer. She first time got contacted through facebook in March, 2020, therefore, they used to talk on mobile phone. Love affair developed between them. On 29/10/2020, when she went to oye hotel at Annapurna, Indore to meet the petitioner, the petitioner, on the pretext of marriage established physical relationship with her. Thereafter, he repeatedly committed rape upon her, but later on, the petitioner told her that his parents arranged his marriage with other girl, therefore, he would not marry with her. Accordingly, the prosecutrix lodged FIR against the petitioner.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial is pending before the Special Judge, Indore.
4. Subsequently, on the basis of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, a joint compromise petition under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court and the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court on 01/02/2023
5. It is submitted by the petitioner and respondent no.2 that they have solemnized marriage and due to their wedlock, respondent no. 2 blessed with a child and since then, they are living with each other as husband and wife at the petitioner's resident. They have arrived at peaceful settlement and have also filed a compromise petition, which has been duly verified by the Registrar of this Court and the continuance of proceeding before the Court with regard to aforementioned offences will Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 3/29/2023 5:02:15 PM 3 amount to sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court and will also result in harassment of the parties
6. Respondent no. 2 admits that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner and she is living with the petitioner as his wife. They are blessed with a baby child on 19/09/2022 and the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties.
7. Heard the petitioner, respondent no. 2 and counsel for respondent no. 1 and also perused the record.
8. This Court vide order dated 24/01/2023, had directed both the parties to appear personally before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 01/02/2023 for verification of factum of compromise. Both the parites personally appeared before the Principal Registrar of this Court and as per the verification report, the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties and they have entered into compromise voluntarily, without any undue influence, pressure, fear and coercion, but the offence under sections 376, 376(2)(n) of IPC and sections 3(i)(w)(ii) and 3(ii)(v) of SC & ST Act are non-compoundable in nature.
10 The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singh & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 350, while considering the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 and 320 of Cr.P.C., has upheld the quashment of non- compoundable offences, pursuant to settlement arrived at by the parties, holding that exercise of judicial restraint vis-à-vis continuance of criminal proceedings after compromise arrived at between the parties, may amount to abuse of process of Court and futile exercise. 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 between the parties, thus continuation of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 3/29/2023 5:02:15 PM 4 which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 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.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, Sonu v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181, Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710, Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) No. 5806 of 2022 had held that even serious offences such as offences under Section 376 of I.P.C can be quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties where the parties are bound by marriage or are close family members. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken a view that continuation of such cases between family members and between a wife and husband would not ensure to anybody's benefit and would only result in further straining of ties within the family.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana & another, AIR 2008 SC 1968, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji Vs. Radhika & Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, laid down that even in non- compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 3/29/2023 5:02:15 PM 5 utilized in other material cases.
13. Relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, nothing survives in the present matter and continuance of trial in such matter will be a futile exercise, which will serve no purpose. Further, the ingredients are mainly under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 3(I)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989, therefore, permission to compound the offence is accorded. Under such a situation, inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful exercise by the Courts below.
14. Resultantly, this petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and the FIR dated 08/12/2020 registered Crime no 449/2020 at police station - Annapurna, Indore for the offence under sections 376, 376(2)(n) of IPC and sections 3(I)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989 and all subsequent proceedings thereto including special case pending before the Special Judge, ( under " SC & ST Act), Indore. also stand quashed against the petitioner.
15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules (ANIL VERMA) JUDGE amol Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 3/29/2023 5:02:15 PM