Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ankit Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 August, 2021

Author: Vishal Mishra

                                                                            1
          THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          MCRC-33160-2021
   (ANKIT PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


GWALIOR; dated 12.08.2021

      Shri Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

      Shri A.S. Raghuwanshi, learned PL, for the respondent /State.

Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

With the consent of parties the matter is finally heard.

Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred

under Section 482 of CrPC, the petitioners have filed this petition for

quashing First Information Report registered at Crime No.135 of 2014

by Police Station Mahila Thana Padav, District Gwalior for the offence

punishable under Section 498-A, 506, 294, 323 and 34 of the I.P.C and

Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have

amicably settled their controversy. Learned counsel for the petitioners

has drawn attention of this Court to the case pending before the J.M.F.C,

Gwalior in Case No. 17410/2014 (Annexure P/3), wherein, the

compromise have taken place and the application under Section 320(2)

has been partly allowed by the learned J.M.F.C, Gwalior and petitioners

have been acquitted under Sections 323, 34 and 506 part II of IPC and

the case is pending against the petitioners under Sections 498-a and 294

of IPC and Sec. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties have

amicably settled the dispute and hence, filed I.A.No.19815 of 2021

under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C stating therein that respondent

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-33160-2021 (ANKIT PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

no.2/complainant does not want to further prosecute the criminal case

against the petitioners-accused. The petition signed by both the parties,

is supported by their affidavits with a prayer to quash the FIR as stated

herein above. The compromise was verified by the Registrar on

05.08.2021 stating that offences under Sections 506 Part II, 323 and 34

of IPC have already been compounded by the trial Court and offence

u/S 498-A and 294 of IPC and Sec. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are

not compoundable. It is submitted that as the dispute has already been

settled amicably, therefore, this petition be allowed taking into

consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 in

para 61, and looking to the issue that the parties have amicably settled

their matrimonial issues.

Per contra, counsel for respondent No.2/complainant has fairly

submitted that now she is living separately and the dispute has already

been settled amicably between the parties and in pursuance to the same,

one time alimony has been decided between the parties and the same

has been deposited by the petitioner-No.1 before the CCD of the

concerning Family Court and the same shall be disbursed to the

complainant after giving the final statement before the concerning

Family Court. In such circumstances, she prays for closing the present

case and she does not want any further litigation against the petitioners.

Counsel for the State has no objection to the prayer made by the parties

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-33160-2021 (ANKIT PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

as the matter stood amicably settled as stated by them.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The parties have appeared before the Principal Registrar of this

Court and categorically statement have been made by them that

petitioner No.1 and his wife have amicably settled the matter. In such

circumstances, present FIR registered against the petitioners as stated

herein above may be quashed. On the other hand, wife Kiran Prajapati

also appeared before the Principal Registrar of this Court and duly

identified by her counsel. She has also categorically stated that one time

alimony has also been decided and the same has been deposited by

husband and his family members before the CCD of concerning Family

Court and after closure of the present case and quashing of FIR, the

same will be disbursed to her. Therefore, she prays for quashing of the

FIR and closure of the present case against the petitioners so that she

may be able to present certified copy of this order before Family Court

and get the final alimony from the Family Court.

The Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika &

Another, 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 69, has been ruled that where there is no

chance of recording conviction against the accused persons and the

entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility, the

criminal case registered against the accused persons though it may not

be compoundable can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of

powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-33160-2021 (ANKIT PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Further, the Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab

and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 in para 61, the Hon'ble Apex Court

has held as under :

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: 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 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-33160-2021 (ANKIT PRAJAPATI AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

quash the criminal proceeding".

Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case

coupled with the fact that petitioners have already been acquitted by the

trial Court for offence under Sections 323, 34 and 506 part II of IPC as

well as considering the fact that the issue has arisen due to the

matrimonial reasons and now, the parties have finally settled their

disputes and considering the categoric statement made by the wife that

she does not want to continue with the litigation as she has settled the

disputes, this court deems it appropriate to quash the FIR registered at

Crime No.135 of 2014 by Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior

against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498-A

and 294 of the I.P.C and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Accordingly, the FIR registered at Crime No.135 of 2014 by

Police Station Mahila Thana, district Gwalior against the petitioners for

the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 294 of the I.P.C and

Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby quashed.