Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Mandloi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 December, 2024
Author: Prakash Chandra Gupta
Bench: Prakash Chandra Gupta
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34602
1 MCRC-38286-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 38286 of 2024
ASHISH MANDLOI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anopam Chouhan - advocate for the applicant.
Shri R.S. Suryavanshi - GA for the State.
Shri Khushiyal Malya -advocate for the Objector.
(Reserved on 19.11.2024)
(Pronounced on 05.12.2024)
ORDER
This petition u/s 482 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the applicant/ accused for quashing FIR, bearing crime no.93/2023, offence under sections 363, 366, 376(1), 376(2)(n), 372(2)(k), 344 of IPC, 3/4 and 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act, registered at P/S- Dhamnod, District- Dhar and all the subsequent proceedings of the criminal case.
2. As per prosecution case, the prosecutrix is minor, aged around 16 years and 5 months. The prosecutrix was acquainted with the applicant from before the occurrence of the incident. On 02/02/2023 the applicant on false pretext to marry the prosecutrix had taken her to Manpur and thereafter took her to his house at village Gatbauri and repeatedly committed rape upon her. The applicant had also solemnized marriage with her in a temple and kept her Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 05-12-2024 19:01:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34602 2 MCRC-38286-2024 for around 4 months as his wife. Thereby she got pregnant. On 06.09.2023 she was recovered by the police from the house of the applicant. Consequently, chargesheet was filed by the police. Subsequently a written application, I.A. no. 16706/ 2024, u/s 320(2) of CrPC i.e. a compromise application was filed before this court by the prosecutrix alongwith affidavit of her parents and the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this court on 14.10.2024.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they have arrived at peaceful settlement. On 25.11.2023 the prosecutrix gave birth to a male child. Currently the prosecutrix is residing in the applicant's house as his wife. Parents of both the parties have accepted the relationship of prosecutrix and the applicant. It is also submitted that at present there are cordial relationship between both the parties and their family members. Therefore, continuance of the proceeding will amount to sheer wastage of valuable time of the court and will also result in harassment of the parties. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Manglesh V The State of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. [MCRC no. 14205/ 2024] wherein coordinate bench of this court has quashed the FIRs and subsequent criminal proceeding in likewise offence.
4. Learned counsel for the Objector has also admitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and prosecutrix has no objection if the FIR is quashed.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the state submits that alleged Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 05-12-2024 19:01:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34602 3 MCRC-38286-2024 offences are not compoundable u/S 320 of CrPC. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. This court vide order dated 03.10.2024 had directed both the parties to appear personally before the Principal Registrar of this court on 14.10.2024 for verification of factum of the compromise. The applicant and the prosecutrix alongwith her mother were personally present before the Principal Registrar of this court on the said date and as per the report, the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties and they have enterred into compromise voluntarily without any undue influence, inducement and coercion. However, as per the verification report alleged offence are not compoundable but offence u/s 344 of IPC is compoundable offence.
8. In the case of Sunil V State Of M.P. And Anr. [Order dated 06/03/2024 in MCRC no. 8158/ 2024] the coordinate bench of this court has held as under:-
"7.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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 05-12-2024 19:01:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34602 4 MCRC-38286-2024 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 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."
9. In the case of Virender Chahal V State And Anr. [2024 SCC Online Del 1630] the Delhi High Court has opined as under:-
"37. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court has held that criminal proceedings arising out of heinous offence such as rape cannot be quashed, merely on the basis of some settlement agreement executed between the accused and the victim, except in cases where there may be extraordinary circumstances to show that continuation of criminal proceedings in a case of serious nature would in fact result in abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice. As expressed Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 05-12-2024 19:01:17 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34602 5 MCRC-38286-2024 in case of State of M.P. v. Madanlal (supra), under no circumstance can one even think of compromise in a case of rape."
10. In the case of Narinder Singh V State of Punjab [(2014) 6 SCC 466] the Apex Court highlighted the following principles:-
"1. The power of the court u/S 482 of CrPC is an inherent power which can be attracted even if the offence is non compoundable.
2. The power u/S 482 of CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
3. This power cannot be exercised in case involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offence like murder, rape, dacoity etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
4. The court is under obligation to look at the nature and gravity of an offence while deciding on an application for quashment of FIR on the ground of compromise."
11. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of documents filed on record, it appears that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was below 18 years of age but later on both of them solemnized their marriage. One male child is born from their wedlock. At present both of them are living together as husband and wife. Their relationship is also accepted by their parents, therefore, this court is of considered opinion that in the presence of extraordinary circumstances, it is a fit case where the inherent power of this court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. should be invoked to quash the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings.
14. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The FIR bearing crime no.93/2023 registered at P/S- Dhamnod, District- Dhar and all the consequential proceedings against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
15. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 05-12-2024 19:01:17NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:34602 6 MCRC-38286-2024 (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE ajit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 05-12-2024 19:01:17