Madhya Pradesh High Court
Meherbaan Singh @ Mahendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 August, 2024
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 13th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18679 of 2024
MEHERBAAN SINGH @ MAHENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saaransh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14426 of 2024
MOHIT JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.S. Chhabra, learned Senior Counsel alongwith Shri Aman
Arora, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anand Bhatt, learned Government Advocate for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 8/14/2024
5:51:22 PM
respondent/State.
Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsels for the respondent Nos. 2 &
3/complainants.
ORDER
Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2. This order shall govern the disposal of these miscellaneous criminal cases as they have arisen out of same crime number of the same police station, hence, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
3. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred by the petitioners for quashment of the FIR registered bearing Crime No.23/2023, dated 26.04.2023, registered at Police Station-Crime Branch, District -Indore, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of IPC and the consequent proceedings arising out of it.
4. As per the prosecution story, the Additional Police Commissioner, Indore received two complaints through email on 27.03.2023 (one by Krushna Das, Export Manager of Seven Seas Global Freight System Pvt. Ltd. Company situated at Surat, Gujrat) and the other one vide email dated 10.04.2023 (by one Vijay Kumar, Senior Manager of Translink Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Company situated at Vadodara, Gujrat) alleging that co-accused persons namely Akash Singh and Rakesh Prajapati contacted Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 8/14/2024 5:51:22 PM the complainants for delivering their cargo for which a sum of Rs.52 lacs and Rs.8 lakhs (total of Rs.60 lacs) was to be paid towards the shipping charges. The aforesaid co-accused persons failed to pay the shipping charges to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and therefore, complaints were submitted against the accused persons before the respondent No. 1/Police Station Crime Branch, Indore. On the basis of aforementioned complaints, FIR bearing Crime No. 23/2023 for the offence under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC has been registered.
5. It is submitted that during the pendency of the case, the parties of M.Cr.C. No. 14426/2024, have settled their dispute amicably. This Court, vide order dated 23.04.2024, sent the record before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the compromise between the petitioner and complainants/respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
6. As per the verification report dated 30.04.2024 received from the Principal Registrar, Kanchan Jain W/o Mohit Jain (wife of accused/petitioner) and respondents were present. Both parties have settled their dispute amicably and filed a joint application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR and charge sheet on the basis of compromise between the parties.
7. Further, it is also pertinent to mention here that there is no compromise application filed before this Court regarding petitioner Meherbaansingh @ Mahendra Singh (M.Cr.C. NO. 18679/2024), but after going through the record, it is evident that the complainants have filed compromise application under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. against both the petitioner Mohit Jain and clearly narrated in his application that Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 8/14/2024 5:51:22 PM respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have amicably settled their dispute after entering into a compromise whereby the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.60 lacs to the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 towards the alleged shipping charges. In support of the compromise application, affidavits of the wife of applicant Kanchan Jain W/o Mohit Jain and respondents have also been filed. In these conditions, it would be assumed that the complainant has settled his dispute with both the applicants Mohit Jain and Meherbaansingh @ Mahendra Singh. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid, counsel for both parties prays for quashment of FIR and further proceedings on the basis of compromise.
8. Counsel for the parties submit that the matter has been compromised and amicably settled between the parties and now no dispute remains between them. The complainants do not want to prosecute the applicant further.
9. Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the complainants has also expressed his no objection.
10. Learned Government Advocate for the State has submitted that the compromise has been settled between petitioner Mohit Jain and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 but no application for compromise has been filed by the petitioner Meherbaansingh @ Mahendra Singh and respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Hence, the petitioner Meherbaansingh @ Mahendra Singh cannot be discharged from the afoersaid offence. That apart, he has also submitted that against the petitioner Mohit Jain, a case of evasion of GST is also running separately, the same is also related to this case, therefore, the FIR for the above mentioned offence cannot be quashed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 8/14/2024 5:51:22 PM11. From the face of report, it is clear that the offence under sections 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC are non-compoundable.
12. In view of the above, it would be apposite to survey the law in respect of compounding in non-compoundable case. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the provisions of section 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C held that the compounding can be permitted in a non- compoundable offence.
Relevant part of the order reads as under :-
"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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 8/14/2024 5:51:22 PM 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. B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji 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."Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 8/14/2024 5:51:22 PM
13. In the case of Yogendra Yadav & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. AIR 2015 SC (Criminal) 166, the Apex Court held as under:-
"Needless to say that offences which are non- compoundable cannot be compound by the Court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh V. State of Punjab). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non- compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may sent wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 8/14/2024 5:51:22 PM convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution.
Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace."
14. In Yogendra Yadav's case (supra), charges were under Sections 307 & 326 IPC. The apex Court was of the view that the High Court could have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. because parties have amicably settled the dispute and the case did not pertain to an offence of moral turpitude or grave offences like rape, murder etc.
15. In the case of Ramgopla & Anr. vs. State of MP (Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012, decided on September 29, 2021), the Apex Court held in para12 as under:-
''12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 8/14/2024 5:51:22 PM the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non-compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and therefore, adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.''
16. On this aspect, the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Jagdish Chanana and others vs. State of Haryana and Another [(2008) 15 SCC 704], is also worth to mention here. It is held that in the cases where offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474 r/w 34 of IPC are attracted, the FIR can be quashed under Section 482 r/w Section 320 of Cr.P.C. The observations are reproduced here as under:-
"2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th July 2006 rejecting the prayer for quashing of FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. During the pendency of these proceedings in this Court, Crl.Misc.Petition No. 42/2008 has been filed putting on Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 8/14/2024 5:51:22 PM record a compromise deed dated 30th April 2007. The fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be.
3. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat and all consequent proceedings."
17. In another case rendered in the case of Anil Jain and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another [(2015) 15 SCC 707] wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the judgment of High Court of Judicature of Allahabad and observed as under:
"In view of the settlement reached between the parties, we allow the prayer and set aside the impugned order dated 11.11.2013 read with order dated 9.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2625 of 2012 and quash the proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. No. 816 of 2009 (Case Crime Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 8/14/2024 5:51:22 PM No. 1068 of 2009 and Criminal Case No. 12175 of 2010 - State versus Anil Jain & others), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Sector 20, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) and any order passed pursuant to the said proceedings. The parties will abide by the settlement."
18. Further, Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singh & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 350, which is related to the offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, 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, the continuation of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise, 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 is not against the society, but merely affects the victim.
19. Now, turning to the point of another co-accused Meherbaansingh @ Mahendra Singh, certainly, no compromise application has been filed in favour of Meherbaansingh, but when the original offence is going to Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 8/14/2024 5:51:22 PM be quashed against the main accused Mohit Jain and the whole amount of cheating has also been deposited in favour of complainants, proceedings against co-accused Meherbaansingh @ Mahendra Singh is also not required to be carried on as he was an employee/Manager in the company of Mohit Jain. It is also pertinent to mention that in course of argument, Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainants also expressed his no objection in quashing the offence made against the co-accused Meherbaansingh @ Mahendra Singh. Hence, the said petition is required to be decided on the same footing.
20. In so far as the objection of learned Govt. Advocate for State regarding the evasion of GST is concerned, since the separate case has already been registered for the same, the result of the quashment of this case does not affect the said case. In this regard, the findings of Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 25415/2023 is required to be quoted here :-
"So far as evasion of GST is concerned, since a separate case has been registered for the same, and even according to the prosecution the aforesaid case has nothing to do with the present case as these two cases are different in nature and relate to different provisions of law, in view of the same, no case for interference is made out."Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 8/14/2024 5:51:22 PM
21. In view of the aforesaid analysis in entirety, the quashment of this case, will not influence the said offence of evasion of GST registered against the petitioners. In the same way, the offence registered against the co-accused Meherbaansingh @ Mahendra Singh is also liable to be quashed in view of the aforesaid discussion. It is also worth to mention that offences do not fall within the exception carved out by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments.
22. In conspectus of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties and in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (Supra) & Jagdish Chanana (supra) and upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, this Court accepts the prayer for quashment of the FIR.
23. Accordingly, FIR registered against the petitioners bearing Crime No.23/2023, at Police Station-Crime Branch, District -Indore, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of IPC and the consequent proceedings arising out of it, are hereby quashed
24. It is clarified that the quashment of this case against the petitioners will not affect any proceeding pending before any other Court and Competent Authority.
25. With the aforesaid, the Miscellaneous Criminal Cases stand disposed of.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE Vindesh Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH RAIKWAR Signing time: 8/14/2024 5:51:22 PM