Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ashutosh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2023

Author: Anil Verma

Bench: Anil Verma

                                                       1
                            IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                               ON THE 9 th OF MAY, 2023
                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3145 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           1.    ASHUTOSH KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI UPENDRA
                                 KUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
                                 OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O: NEAR DEEP
                                 PRAKASH APARTMENT,   SUNDAR    NAGAR,
                                 RANCHI (JHARKHAND)

                           2.    UPENDRA KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE SHRI JAY
                                 NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 NOT MENTION, R/O: NEAR DEEP PRAKASH
                                 APARTMENT,   SUNDAR     NAGAR,   RANCHI,
                                 JHARKHAND (JHARKHAND)

                           3.    SMT. LAXMI DEVI W/O UPENDRA KUMAR SINGH,
                                 AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOT
                                 MENTION,    R/O:  NEAR    DEEP  PRAKASH
                                 APARTMENT,    SUNDAR    NAGAR,   RANCHI,
                                 JHARKHAND (JHARKHAND)

                           4.    SMT. ANUPAMA SINGH D/O UPENDRA KUMAR
                                 SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 NOT MENTION, R/O: NEAR DEEP PRAKASH
                                 APARTMENT,   SUNDAR   NAGAR,   RANCHI,
                                 JHARKHAND (JHARKHAND)

                           5.    SMT. TANVI SINGH W/O ASHUTOSH KUMAR
                                 SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 NOTHING, R/O: I BLOCK, 507, SILVER SPRING
                                 PHASE-2 NAYTA MUNDLA, INDORE (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                             .....PETITIONERS
                           (BY SHRI PRADEEP - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION MAHILA THANA
                           PALASIA, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 10-05-2023
10:23:42
                                                              2
                                                                                        .....RESPONDENT
                           (SHRI VISHAL PANWAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT/ STATE
                           AND SHRI ANIL NAGAR - ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)

                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) for quashment of FIR dated 08.11.2022 registered at Crime No.256/2022 at P.S. Mahila Thana Palasia, District Indore for the offence under Sections 406, 323, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all the subsequent proceedings arising from criminal case No.12942/2022 (titled State of M.P. Vs. Ashutosh Kumar Singh and Others) before the JMFC, Indore.

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 was solemnized marriage with petitioner No.5/ complainant on 24.04.2013 at Ranchi, Jharkhand and after two days of their marriage, petitioner No.1 alongwith petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who are the family members of the petitioner No.1 demanded dowry from the petitioner No.5/complainant and have started harassing her physically and mentally. They pressurized the complainant to execute registered sale deed of her father's house in the name of petitioner No.1. In the year 2018, when complainant became pregnant, then petitioner Nos.1 to 4 thrown her out from their house by stating that the doors of the house will be closed until she arranged the dowry. Thereafter, complainant blessed with a baby child, but petitioner Nos.1 to 4 refused to keep her in their house. After that complainant/petitioner No.5 Tanvi lodged an FIR at P.S. Mahila Thana, Indore. Accordingly, offence has been registered.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 10-05-2023 10:23:42 3 JMFC, Indore and Criminal Case No.12942/2022 has been registered against the petitioner Nos.1 to 4.

Subsequently, on the basis of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioners and the complainant, a joint compromise petition under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court and vide order dated 24.02.2023 passed by this Court, the factum of compromise has been duly verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court on 28.02.2023 and submitted a report that both the parties have voluntarily entered into compromise with their mutual consent and without any threat, inducement, pressure, coercion and duress and there is no dispute remaining between them.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between both the parties has been amicably settled and they have arrived at peaceful settlement and have also filed a compromise petition, which has been duly verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court and in continuance of proceedings before the trial Court with regard to aforementioned offences will amount to sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court and will also result in harassment of both the parties. Hence, he prays that FIR dated 08.11.2022 and all the subsequent proceedings including the case pending before the trial Court be quashed.

Complainant/ petitioner No.5 Smt. Tanvi Singh also admits that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner No.1 and due to their wedlock, she blessed with a baby child and matter has also been amicably settled between both the parties.

Heard Counsel for both the parties and perused the record. From verification of factum of compromise done by the Principal Registrar of this Court, it is established that matter has been amicably settled between both the parties and they have voluntarily entered into compromise Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 10-05-2023 10:23:42 4 without any inducement, pressure, force, duress or coercion, but offence under Section 323, 506 Part II and 506 Part II of IPC are compoundable in nature, therefore, permission to compound the offence under Section 323 and 506 Part II of IPC is accorded, but offences under Section 498A, 406, 294 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable in nature.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana & another, AIR 2008 SC 1968, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji Vs. Radhika & Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 , laid down that even in non-compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material cases.

Relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, nothing survives in the present matter and continuance of trial in such matter will be a futile exercise, which will serve no purpose. Further, the ingredients are mainly under Section 498A, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC, therefore, permission to compound the offences is accorded. Under such a situation, inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful exercise by the Courts below.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 10-05-2023 10:23:42 5

It is also noteworthy to mention here that only omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. The prosecution launched against the petitioners is an abuse of process of Court, therefore, in terms of the decisions of the apex Court referred above and in the case of State of Harayana and Others Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Others reported in (1992) SCC (Cri) 426, the FIR in question registered at Crime No.256/2022 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore is liable to be quashed. Thus, parties are permitted to compound the offences.

Resultantly, this petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and the FIR registered at Crime No.256/2022 at Police Station Mahila Thana Palasia, District Indore for offences under Section 498A, 406, 323, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well as all other subsequent proceedings thereto including Criminal Case No.12942/2022 pending before JMFC, Indore also stand quashed against the petitioners.

With the aforesaid, MCRC stands disposed off.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information and necessary compliance. No order as to costs.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Anushree Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 10-05-2023 10:23:42