Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sandeep Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2019

                             1
                                               M.Cr.C. No. 8162/2019

          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  M.Cr.C. No.8162/2019
     (Sandeep Singh Tomar Vs. State of MP & another)

Gwalior, dated 12.03.2019

      Shri Ravindra Singh Kushwah, learned counsel with Shri

S.S. Kushwah, learned counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Kshitij Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State.

Shri P.C. Soni, learned counsel for the complainant.

Case Diary is perused.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

This petition has been filed, under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.433/2018 registered at Police Station Porsa, District Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354 of IPC, on the basis of compromise.

2. During pendency of this petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner and the complainant have jointly filed application under section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. which was registered as I.A. No.1405/2019 stating that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they are not inclined to pursue the matter any more.

3. This Court, vide order dated 26.02.2019, had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for recording their statements and for verification of factum of 2 M.Cr.C. No. 8162/2019 compromise. The Principal Registrar has submitted his report on 27/02/2019 and verified the compromise. The report states that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion. It further states that as per Section 320 of Cr.P.C. the offence under Section 452 and 354 of IPC are not compoundable.

4. In the cases of 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, and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Supreme Court has 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. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the opinion of this court, continuance of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, section 482 Cr.P.C.

can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful exercise by the courts below. Moreso, the offence in question is not against the society but merely affects the victim.

5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the following principles are to be kept in mind by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

(i) Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves.

However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

(ii) When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(a) ends of justice, or

(b) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

(iii) Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

(iv) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial 4 M.Cr.C. No. 8162/2019 relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

(v) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

(vi) Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

(vii) While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation.

6. Consequent upon the above said facts and that the accused petitioner and the complainant/respondent No.2 have amicably resolved the issue, this Court allows this MCRC with the following directions :-

7. The FIR bearing Crime No.433/2018 registered at Police Station Porsa, District Morena for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354 of IPC and all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.

No order as to cost.

The petition, accordingly, stands allowed.

(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) Judge neetu NEETU SHASHANK 2019.03.13 06:30:41

-07'00'