Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2015
1 M.Cr.C. No. 13789 of 2015
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE
M.Cr.C. No.13789 of 2015
APPLICANTS: Sandeep Soni and others
Versus
RESPONDENTS: State of M.P. and another
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.M. Guru, Advocate for the applicants.
Ms. Hemlata Kshatriya, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(O R D E R) Passed on: 09.09.2015 This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the FIR No. 417/2011 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dsitrict Damoh for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and consequential order dated 29.04.2015 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Damoh in Criminal Case No.1133/2011 convicted the accused applicants No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC & under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations.
Short facts of the prosecution case is that on the basis of complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 Urmila @ Soumya Soni, a criminal case for the offences punishable under Section 498-A & 506- 2 M.Cr.C. No. 13789 of 2015 B/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the applicant No.1 Sandeep Soni, husband, applicant No.2 Gokul Prasad, father-in-law, applicant No.3 Smt. Shakun @ Janki, mother-in-law and Smt. Ragni Soni, sister-in-law. After conclusion of investigation a challan has been filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Damoh.
On the basis of the challan papers learned trial Court levelled aforesaid charges against the applicants, who abjured their guilt, hence, they put to trial.
During trial, the complainant/respondent no.2 and applicants filed two applications as envisaged under Section 320 (A) (1) and 320 (2) of Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court after endorsing such applications for compounding, compounded the offence punishable under Section 506-B/34 of IPC and acquitted the applicants, however, declined to discharge the applicants from Section 498-A of IPC & under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the ground that such offence is not compoundable.
To prove its case, the prosecution has examined complainant Smt. Urmila @ Soumya and other witnesses and also got exhibited documents. During accused statements, they denied the charges levelled against them.
Learned trial Court after appreciation of the prosecution evidence vide judgment dated 29.04.2015 convicted the accused applicants No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC & under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of 3 M.Cr.C. No. 13789 of 2015 Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulations, Against the judgment of conviction, the applicants preferred an appeal which is registered as Criminal Appeal No.52/2015 and pending for consideration before learned Sessions Judge, Damoh. Simultaneously the applicants filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
In above facts and circumstances, the question which now remains to be answered is whether since the offences under Section 498-A/34 of IPC & under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not compoundable, the proceedings of complaint case could be quashed?
It is apparent from the impugned order of the trial Court annexed with the petition that the respondent No.2 has entered into compromise with the applicants voluntarily without any undue influence or coercion so till this extent, no further verification is required.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted at bar that their clients have amicably resolved their disputes and there is no likelihood of any kind of dispute between them. It is pertinent to mention here that dispute between the parties is of private nature and having no adverse effect on the society as the nature is personal.
The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 AIR SCW 5333 considered the relevant provisions of the Code and concluded as under:-
"The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent 4 M.Cr.C. No. 13789 of 2015 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."
Since the parties had buried the hatchet by amicably settling their disputes, this Court could allow the matter to be compounded. In the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that the settlement arrived at between the parties in form of compromise petitions filed before the learned trial Court and as submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants before this Court is a sensible step that will benefit the parties, give quietus to the controversy and rehabilitate and normalize the relationship between them.
In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the answer of question is givev in affirmative. Resultantly, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. FIR No. 417/2011 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dsitrict Damoh for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and consequential order dated 29.04.2015 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Damoh in Criminal Case No.1133/2011 convicting the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 498-A/34 of IPC & under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed. The applicants are acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 498-A/34 of IPC & under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 5 M.Cr.C. No. 13789 of 2015
Consequent thereto, proceedings of Criminal Appeal No. 52/2015 pending before Sessions Judge, Damoh are also hereby quashed.
This petition is accordingly disposed of.
During pendency of the petition, vide order dated 25.08.2015, this Court stayed the further proceedings of the appellate Court pending in Criminal Appeal No.52/2015 but looking to disposal of this petition, no order is required.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Appellate Court for intimation and necessary compliance.
(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE SJ