Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 November, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MP 1588
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-42599-2019
(VINOD KUSHWAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Gwalior, Dated:25/11/2019
Shri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sanjay Bahirani, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
Shri S.S. Kushwah, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2.
Heard on admission.
Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing First Information Report registered at Crime No.103 of 2019 by Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506 & 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and hence, filed I.A.No.8068/2019 and I.A.No.8069/2019 under Section 320(2) and 320 of Cr.P.C stating therein that respondent no.2/complainant does not want to further prosecute the criminal case against the petitioners-accused. The petition signed by both the parties, is 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-42599-2019 (VINOD KUSHWAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) supported by their affidavits with a prayer to quash the FIR pertaining to the case as stated herein above with all consequential proceedings. The compromise was verified by the Registrar on 01.11.2019 stating that offences under Sections 506, 34 of the IPC are compoundable but offences under Sections 498A and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act of the IPC are non-compoundable the same reads as under;
"Parties have submitted copy of their Adhar, Voter Card and Driving Licence regarding their identification.
Parties have filed this petition and I.A. No.8068/2019 and I.A. No.8069/2019 for compromise alongwith affidavit of Complainant. Statement of Complainant/Respondent No.2 Smt. Anjali Kushwah and Accused/Petitioners No.1 to 4 are recorded. Matter perused, inquired and heard as to factum of compromise.
After verifying from complainant/Respondent No.2 Smt. Anjali Kushwah and Accused/Petitioners No.1 to 4 that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion.
According to Sec.320 of CRPC the offence U/S 506, 34 of IPC is compoundable. But U/S 498A of IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable.
Report is submitted accordingly."
3. The counsel for the State formally opposed the prayer.
4. On perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that all the disputes were resolved mutually owing to which, the respondent 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-42599-2019 (VINOD KUSHWAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) no.2 does not want to prosecute the petitioners. In such circumstances, there are bleak chances of conviction in this case. The continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners would be mere abuse of the process of law in the instant case.
5. The Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika &Another, 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 69, 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.
6. Further, the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 in para 61, the Hon'ble Apex Court as 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 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-42599-2019 (VINOD KUSHWAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 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 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 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-42599-2019 (VINOD KUSHWAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 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".
7. 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 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-42599-2019 (VINOD KUSHWAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions".
8. Present case is the case of matrimonial dispute between the parties. Compromise has been entered into between the parties and they have submitted aforesaid applications which were sent for verification before Principal Registrar of this Court who has submitted report on 1.11.2019. Statements of parties were recorded before Pr. Registrar wherein, they have categorically stated that they have entered into compromise in the matrimonial dispute and now, they are residing happily. Principal Registrar of this court has also observed that "after verifying from complainant/respondent No.2 Smt. Anjali Kushwah and accused/petitioners No.1 to 4, they have arrived at the compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion". Although Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable but taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties and is being amicably settled between them and now the parties are residing together, in the interest of justice, compromise applications filed before this court are allowed and all the proceedings pertaining to 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-42599-2019 (VINOD KUSHWAH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) First Information Report registered at Crime No.103 of 2019 by Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506 & 34 of the I.P.C and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are ordered to be quashed.
This petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Vishal Mishra) JUDGE vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2019.12.02 10:23:15 +05'30'