Ashok Kumar Ghansani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1234 MP

                                         M.Cr.C. Nos.39106/2019 & 47719/2018

                                   -1-


                 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh

                         M.Cr.C. 39106/2019
    (ASHOK KUMAR GHANSANI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                         M.Cr.C. 47719/2018
        (ANURAG GUPTA Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Jabalpur, Dated: 05/04/2021
       Shri J.L. Soni, learned counsel for the applicants.
       Shri Akshay Pawar, learned counsel for the respondent

No.1/State.

Shri Ram Narayan Shah, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3/complainant.

Heard.

This order will govern the disposal of M.Cr.C. No.39106/2019 and M.Cr.C. No.47719/2018 as both these petitions involve the similar issue.

These petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. have been filed for quashing the criminal proceedings in Sessions Trial No.89/2015 pending against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 409 of the IPC before the III rd Additional Sessions Judge Mandla.

The counsel for the applicants as well as the respondent Nos.2 & 3 had jointly submitted before this Court on 27.02.2021 that the parties have compromised the matter, therefore, the revision petition be allowed by quashing the FIR and the challan, therefore, this Court had directed the parties to appear before the Registrar (Judicial) for verification of compromise on 26.03.2021.

On 26.03.2021, the parties had appeared before the Registrar (Judicial) and have recorded their submissions stating that the matter has been voluntarily compromised between the parties. Accordingly, the Registrar (Judicial) has submitted the report before this Court stating that the compromise has been arrived at between the parties voluntarily without any pressure and the compromise appears to be M.Cr.C. Nos.39106/2019 & 47719/2018

genuine and authentic.

Counsel for the applicants has pointed out that in a connected Sessions Trial No.88/2015, in similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the M.Cr.C. No.47583/2018 by order dated 02.12.2019 by quashing the trial as against the said the applicant Anurag Gupta. He has also pointed out that the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC are compoundable but the offence under Section 409 IPC is not compoundable but by exercising of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the prosecution for the said offence also.

The Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Anurag Gupta (supra) taking note of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 and Anita Maria Dias and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2018 (3) SCC 29 has held as under:

"Now, the offence under Section 420, 120-B are compoundable offence and Section 409 of IPC involved in this case is non- compoundable offence. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320(2) 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.

However, the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another report in (2012) 10 SCC, 303, it is held as under:-

"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 Cr.P.C. Cases where power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Before exercise of inherent M.Cr.C. Nos.39106/2019 & 47719/2018

quashment power under Section 482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. Offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceeding."

In another Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Maria Dias and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 29 has held as under:- "The principles on this point relevant to this case are, that where offences are predominantly of civil character, particularly arising out of commercial transactions, dispute should be quashed when parties have resolved their dispute. Further, timing of settlement would be crucial for exercise of power or declining to exercise power. Where settlement is arrived at between parties immediately after commission of offence and matter is still under investigation, High Court may be liberal in accepting settlement to quash proceedings/investigation as investigation is in its early stage and charge-sheet has not been filed. Where charges are framed and recording of evidence is yet to commence or is at early stage, proceedings can be quashed after prima facie assessment of circumstances/materials. Where trial is at fag end, High Court should refrain from exercising its power as trial court would be in position to decide matter on merits. Where accused already convicted and appeal against conviction is pending, mere settlement or compromise between victim and accused is not ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of offender."

In the light of the aforesaid compromise which is taken place between the parties and looking to the fact that the complainant and petitioners have settled their dispute amicably and to see that they shall keep good terms in future, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the matter pending especially when the grievance of the complainant has been satisfied by the present petitioner. The case is fixed for prosecution evidence and it is yet to commence.

M.Cr.C. Nos.39106/2019 & 47719/2018

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and proceedings pending before, 1st ASJ, Mandla, Distt.-Mandla, M.P. in S.T. No. 88/2015 is hereby quashed. Therefore, petitioner is discharged from the offence punishable under Section 420, 120-B and 409 of IPC pending before learned 1st ASJ, Mandla, Distt.- Mandla, M.P.

The present cases stand on the same footing, therefore, the detailed reasons which are assigned in the above judgments in the case of Anurag Gupta (supra), the present petitions are also allowed and the ST No.89/2015 pending before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Mandla is hereby quashed as against the applicants and the applicants are discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 409 of IPC.

The signed order be placed in the record M.Cr.C. No.39106/2019 and a copy whereof be placed in the record of connected M.Cr.C. No.47719/2018.

(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Biswal

SHIBA NARAYAN BISWAL 2021.04.06 16:41:09 +05'30'