Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 1
MCRC-7685-2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
(Single Bench)
M.Cr.C NO. 7685 OF 2021
MOHAR SINGH AND OTHERS ..... PETITIONERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
Hon. Shri Justice Vishal Mishra
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri Rajmani Bansal, learned counsel for petitioners.
Shri I.S. Ashtana, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
Shri Neeraj Dhamnaya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2
to 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for Reporting : No
Reserved on : 17.02.2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(Passed on 17th March, 2021) The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of an FIR bearing Crime No.749/2020 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 MCRC-7685-2021 registered at Police Station Aron, District Guna for offences under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC, letter on enhanced Sec. 326 of IPC. The quashment has been sough on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
2. During pendency of this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioners and complainant-respondent No.2 to 5 have filed an application jointly stating that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they are not inclined to pursue the matter any more. By the rival parties, application has been filed on 05.02.2021 being IA No 4149/2021 jointly informing about parties having entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further.
3. It is alleged that the matter was listed on 10.02.2021 and this Court had directed for sending the matter for verification to the Principal Registrar of this Court. The statements were recorded and the report has been submitted by the Principal Registrar of this Court.
4. From perusal of the report it is seen that the offences under Sections 323, 506 and 34 of IPC are compoundable in nature, but offences under Sections 294 and 326 are not compoundable. THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3
MCRC-7685-2021
5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika & Another, reported in 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 69 and has argued that if the offences are not heinous in nature and the parties are willing to compromise the matter, then looking to the fact that facing of entire trial will be futile exercise, the FIR should have been quashed.
6. It is argued that the larger Bench has considered the aspect in the case of Gian Singh (Supra) and has quashed the FIR for offences under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC, letter on enhanced Sec. 326 of IPC. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1969, in which offences under Section 406 has been compounded. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the certain order passed in M.Cr.C. No. 8955/2012 (Mukesh Narwariya and ors. Vs. Bansilal Jatav) vide order dated 03.12.2012, wherein, offences under Sections 294, 323 of IPC r/w Sec. 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act were quashed on the basis of compromise. Further in the case of Balveer THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 MCRC-7685-2021 Singh and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors. passed in M.Cr.C. No.4862/2015 vide order dated 01.06.2015, wherein the FIR was quashed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties for the offences registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 452, 336, 323 and 506 of IPC.
7. It is argued that in the present case the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 294 of IPC are non compoundable, but the same can be compounded with the permission of the Court as the parties have already settled their dispute and facing of the entire trial will be a futile exercise. He has prayed for quashment of the FIR.
8. Counsel for the complainant has also stated that they do not want to continue with the proceedings of the FIR as they have already given their statements before the Principal Registrar regarding the compromise entered into between the parties.
9. Counsel for the State has submitted that the offences under Sections 323, 506 and 34 of IPC being compoundable in nature and the same can be quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties, but the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 294 of IPC being non-compoundable offences, therefore, the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 MCRC-7685-2021 same cannot be compounded on the basis of compromise.
10. In this regard 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".
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. From perusal of the record it is seen that in pursuance to the incident is said to have taken place on 23.10.2020 and FIR was got registered for offences under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC, letter on enhanced Sec. 326 of IPC at Crime No. 749/2020 registered at Police Station, Aron, District Guna. During the pending investigation, the parties have already entered into compromise and the present petition has been filed for quashment of the FIR on the basis of compromise. The statements were got recorded before the Principal Registrar of this Court and the report has been submitted by the Principal Registrar of this Court to the following effect:-
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6
MCRC-7685-2021
13. From perusal of the report it is seen that the offences 323, 506 and 34 of IPC are compoundable in nature and other offences under Sections 324, 326 and 294 of IPC are not compoundable in nature.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Ramanjini and others Vs. State of Karnatka and anr. reported in (2020) 3 RCR (Cri) 552 has considered the preposition of Section 320 of Cr.P.C 482 of IPC and has quashed the FIR for offence registered under Sections 324 and 326/34 of IPC and considering the holding as under:-
"5. There cannot be any dispute that offencs which are non-compoundable cannot be compounded by the Court. The Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'). However, the High Court can quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. At the same time, the Supreme Court may, in order to do THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 7 MCRC-7685-2021 complete justice in a matter, in the exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, quash criminal proceedings where the offences involved are not of a grave nature, if it is shown that the same would lead to or help in maintaining peace between the parties involved. We may proceed to observe that offences which involve moral turpitude and grave offences like rape, murder, etc. will not be effaced by quashing the proceedings related thereto merely because of a compromise, in light of the consequent harmful effect on society.
6. Be that as it may, learned counsel appearing on both sides prayed before this Court that the impugned judgment be set aside, inasmuch as the parties have compromised in order to live peacefully and harmoniously in society. Their houses are in the same neighborhood and they are already living happily. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka has no objection to said compromise.
7. We have gone through the evidence, more particularly, the evidence of the injured eye-witness (PW/9) and the Doctor (PW/2) in detail to find out as to whether the parties may be permitted to compound in the matter on hand. Out of four injuries sustained by the injured, two injuries are stated to be grievous and the same are not on the vital portions of the body. Both these so called grievous injuries are lacerated wounds over the legs. There is nothing on record to show that the injured has sustained fracture, permanent privation of the sight or of the hearing etc. Though the doctor, PW/2, has deposed that both these injuries are grievous in nature, in our opinion, both the injuries will not fall within any of the eight categories contained in Section 320 of the IPC. Thus, in law they cannot be termed as grievous injuries. Therefore, the offence may not fall under Section 326 of the IPC, but would fall under Section 324 of the IPC and we conclude so.
8. We do not wish to unsettle the happy and peaceful lives of the parties. We therefore accept the proposed compromise and acquit the accused.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 8 MCRC-7685-2021 observation that the accused stand acquitted and the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court stand set aside."
15. In the aforesaid case, the accused were convicted by both the Courts i.e. learned trial Court and learned High Court for the offence under Section 324 and 326/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for three months and three years respectively and apart from payment of fine. Subsequently, involvement of elders of the families and in view of the mediation and upon the advice of the elders of the respective families, the parties have put an end to the acrimony between them and are living happily and harmoniously. The Supreme Court has considered the aforesaid aspect and has acquitted the accused for offences under Section 324 and 326/34 of IPC even after their conviction. In the present case, the FIR at the stage of investigation and the charge sheet has not been filed till date. There are no grievous injury caused any of the vital part of the body of the injured by the accused persons.
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Laxmi Narayan reported in 2019(5) SCC 688 has held as under:-
"At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present appeals, the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has quashed the FIR for THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 9 MCRC-7685-2021 the offences under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC solely on the basis of a compromise between the complainant and the accused. That in view of the compromise and the stand taken by the complainant, considering the decision of this Court in the case of Shiji (supra), the High Court has observed that there is no chance of recording conviction against the accused persons and the entire exercise of a trial would be exercise in futility, the High Court has quashed the FIR."
17. 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 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 10 MCRC-7685-2021 overwhelmingly and predominatingly 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 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".
18. The Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika & Another, 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 69, it 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.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 11 MCRC-7685-2021 & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held as under:-
"**** 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
(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.
29.4 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. *****"
20. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is opined that continuance of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful exercise by the courts below.
21. From the record it is seen that investigation is pending in the case and parties have settled their issues amicably. There was no THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 12 MCRC-7685-2021 previous enmity and no preparation was made by the accused to cause injury. The incident has taken place all of a sudden.
22. Consequent upon the above said facts and that the accused petitioners and the complainant/respondent No.2 to 5 have amicably resolved the issue and the offences are being permitted to be compounded with the permission of the Court. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this MCRC with the following directions:-
(i) FIR dated 23.10.2020 bearing Crime No.749/2020 registered at Police Station Aron, District Guna alleging offences punishable under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC, letter on enhanced Sec.
326 of IPC against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
(ii) All the consequential proceedings flowing out of the said FIR also stand quashed.
No orders as to costs.
(Vishal Mishra) JUDGE LJ* LOKENDRA JAIN 2021.03.18 14:14:49 -07'00'