Nratyapal @ Rajjo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nratyapal @ Rajjo vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2022

Bench: Sunita Yadav

                                1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR

                                 BEFORE
                    HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                        ON THE 29th OF AUGUST, 2022


              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30235 of 2022


        Between:-
        NRATYAPAL @ RAJJO S/O SULTAN SINGH,
        AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRI.
        VILL PULAWALI   PS   UMARI   (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                           .....PETITIONER
        (BY MR. NIRMAL SHARMA - ADVOCATE)


        AND


1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
        POLICE   STATION  P.S. UMARI (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

2.      MANMOHAN        SINGH     S/O      SHRI
        RAMPRATAPSINGH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
        OCCUPATION:   AGRICULTURIST    VILLAGE
        PULAWALI   STATION   UMARI    (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
        (MR. NITIN GOYAL - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 -
        STATE AND MR. INDER SINGH ASTHANA - ADVOCATE FOR
        RESPONDENT NO. 2 - COMPLAINANT)




      This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                     2


                                    ORDER

B y invoking inherent power of this Court, present petition has been preferred by petitioner u/S.482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.69/2022 registered at Police Station Umari, District Bhind (M.P.) for the offences under Section 307 of IPC and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.

Prosecution story in brief is that present petitioner - accused and respondent No. 2 - complainant were attending a Lagun ceremony of Patel Singh S/o Ballu Singh on 14/4/2022 at Village - Kulawali. During the ceremony, present petitioner fired a gunshot in the air (harsh fire). When the complainant asked him not to fire, petitioner fired a gunshot aiming at him, however, he ducked but the bullet pallets after reflecting from the rock hit the complainant due to which he received injuries in the back and his right hand. Upon the report, FIR at Crime No. 69/2022 got registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 307 of IPC.

Alo ngwith the petition, both the parties have jointly filed IA No.9709/2022, stating therein that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they have entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further.

I n compliance of order dated 09/07/2022 passed by this Court, the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, who has recorded the statements of complainant/ respondents No.2 as well as the petitioner and has submitted a report dated 11/07/2022 that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion. The verification report further states that as per Section 320 of 3 CrPC, offence under Section 307 of IPC is not compoundable.

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, a nd 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 utilised in other material cases.

On perusal of the case diary, it appears that it is a case of harsh firing during the Lagun ceremony. It is also apparent that as per the Indoor Patient File (Indoor Admission No. 44/377) of City Life Multispeciality Hospital, Gole ka Mandir, Gwalior, the complainant informed the doctor that he underwent accidental firearm injury at a local marriage function.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and taking into account the law laid down by Hon'ble 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.

Considering the fact that the respondent No. 2 - complainant and petitioner - accused have amicably resolved the issue, this Court allows this MCRC with the following direction:-

1. FIR dated 15/4/2022 bearing Crime No.69/2022 registered at Police Station Umari, District Bhind (M.P.) for the offence under Section 307 of IPC against the petitioner is hereby quashed.

2. All the consequential proceedings flowing out of the said 4 FIR also stand quashed.

Petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE AKS ALOK KUMAR 2022.08.30 17:16:29 +05'30' 11.0.23

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court