Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Sushma Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 January, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
Bench: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 18th OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43125 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT SUSHMA DWIVEDI W/O
HARIKRISHAN DWIVEDI, AGED ABOUT 71
YEARS, RANDHEER COLONY GOLA KA
MANDIR JILA GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SAMAR GHURAIYA- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
INCHARGE POLICE STATION THROUGH
P S GOLA KA MANDIR JILA GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VIPINCHAND S/O NATHURAM AGRAWAL,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, MAKAN NO A/21
PUSHKAR COLONY BHIND ROAD
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI G.P. CHAURAISYA- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND SHRI ADITYA SHARMA, ADVCOATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity "CrPC") has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the FIR as well as the other consequential proceedings in connection with Crime No.380/2008 by Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 120- B, 34 of the IPC, on the basis of compromise between the rival parties.
Along-with the petition under Section 482 of CrPC, I.A. Nos.13967/2022 & 13968/2022 have also been filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant respectively wherein they have stated that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they have entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further. The applications are supported by affidavits of petitioner/accused Smt. Sushma Dwivedi and respondent No.2/complainant- Vipinchand.
The facts, as culled out from the petition, are that respondent No.2/complainant has lodged a written complaint at police station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior alleging therein that, petitioner-Sushma and Harikrishan Dwivedi and Shashank Dwivedi have executed an agreement for the sale of a flat in Gurukripa Apartment with the complainant and advance money of Rs.5,00,000/- has been given by him to them. It is also alleged that the flat under agreement has already been mortgaged with the bank and this fact has not been brought into the knowledge of the complainant by them. They have not executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant, rather sold out the flat to someone else. On the basis of aforesaid complaint filed by the complainant, the present FIR has been registered against petitioner-
3Sushma and Harikrishan Dwivedi and Shashank Dwivedi for the alleged offence, as stated above. Thereafter, rival parties have entered into compromise and considering the aforesaid, the trial Court has quashed the FIR vide order dated 04.08.2022 (Annexure P/1) only for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and continued the trial for offence under Section 120-B, 34 of the IPC. Against the aforesaid order, the present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, if the FIR indicates a dispute between the complainant and accused which was of a private nature and once the complainant has decided not to pursue the matter further, then the High Court could have taken a mere pragmatic view of the matter. The criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour, may in appropriate situation fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute and the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of compromise even where non-compoundable offences are involved. It is further submitted that the complainant has entered into compromise with petitioners and therefore, the present petition has been filed for compounding the offence under Section 120-B, 34 of IPC on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in order to support his contentions, has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., [(2014) 6 SCC 466]. On the basis of aforesaid facts of the case and in the light of above cited judgments, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for allowing this petition by quashing the FIR in question and all consequential 4 proceedings arising out of it.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant has no objection to the prayer made by petitioner in regard to quashment of FIR as well as other consequential criminal proceedings.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:
"482. Saving for inherent power of High Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
The powers of High Court under Section 482 of CrPC are partly administrative and partly judicial. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Muniswami [AIR 1977 SC 1489] held the section envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, "to give effect to an order under CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and to secure the ends of justice."
The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is discretionary. The Court may depend upon the facts of a given case. Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of CrPC. It is true that there powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
It is also settled law that the inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC has to be exercised for the ends of the justice and should not be 5 arbitrarily exercised to cut short the normal process of a criminal trial.
In the light of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, [(2012) 10 SCC 303] and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., [(2014) 6 SCC 466], and considering the fact that both the rival parties have resolved their disputes, this Court is inclined to allow this petition with the following direction:-
The FIR bearing Crime No.380/2008 by Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, District Gwalior and all proceedings flowing from it so far it relates to offence under Sections 120-B, 34 of the IPC against the petitioner are hereby quashed and the petitioner is acquitted from Sections 120-B, 34 of the IPC on the basis of compromise arrived between the rival parties. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ojha Digitally signed by YOGENDRA OJHA Date: 2023.01.19 10:55:36 +05'30'