Jaj Singh Yadav vs Yogendra Singh Niranjan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4165 MP

                                      1
                                                            M.Cr.C.-13789-2021

              THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    Misc. Criminal Case. No.13789/2021
              [Jay Singh & Ors. vs. Yogendra Singh Niranjan]
Gwalior, Dated 11/8/2021

         Shri D.S. Niranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners.

         Shri   Amit    Kumar      Goyal,    learned    counsel     for   the

respondent/complainant.

This petition under section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the

petitioners seeking quashment of criminal proceedings instituted against

them in Case No.44/2009 passed by Special Judge, Datia, for the

offences punishable under Sections 279, 393 and Section 11, 13 of the

MPDVPK Act, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the

parties.

Along-with the petition under Section 482 of CrPC, the parties

have also filed IA No.7597/2021, which is an application under Section

320 of CrPC, for compromise. The application supported by affidavits of

complainant- Yogendra Singh Niranjan and petitioners No.1 to 4,

namely, Jadge Singh Yadav, Satendra Singh, Padam Singh and Anirudh

Singh.

In compliance of the order dated 23/3/2021 passed by this Court,

the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of

this Court, who has recorded statement of complainant- Yogendra Singh

Niranjan and petitioners No.1 to 4, namely, namely, Jaj Singh Yadav,

Satendra Singh, Padam Singh and Anirudh Singh and has submitted a

report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without

M.Cr.C.-13789-2021

any fear or force. The verification report further states that as per section

320 CrPC, the offences under Sections under Sections 279, 393 and

Section 11, 13 of the MPDVPK Act are not compoundable.

The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs.

Laxmi Narayan and Others, by judgment dated 5th March, 2019

passed in Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2019 has held that where the

offence is against the society and it is a serious offence, then the

proceeding should not be quashed.

The Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra)

has held as under:-

''13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved 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;

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in thatcapacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

M.Cr.C.-13789-2021

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. 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 framing 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. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial.

Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused,

M.Cr.C.-13789-2021

namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.''

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the

submission made by the counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the

considered view that the offence registered against the petitioners is

serious in nature and it is against the society. This Court is of the

considered opinion that it is not a fit case where the proceedings can be

quashed on the basis of compromise.

Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

                                        (Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
pwn*                                             Judge
       Pawan Kumar
       2021.08.13
       14:44:42
       +05'30'