Atul Ratra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8263 MP

            The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   MCRC No. 34710 of 2020
               (ATUL RATRA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)



Jabalpur, Dated :06-12-2021

        Shri Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1.
        Shri Shivam Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner No.2.
     Smt. Sonali Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for disposing of criminal appeal No. 25/2020 pending before the Court of 24th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur and allowing the application under Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner No.1 acquitting him from the charges under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner No.1 has been convicted by learned trial Court in Criminal case No. 9724/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.2000/- alongwith default stipulation RI for 40 days. Fine amount has already been deposited. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, petitioner No.1 preferred an appeal bearing Cr.A. No.25/2020, pending before the 24 Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.

3. During the pendency of appeal before appellate Court, parties entered into compromise and wanted to close proceedings against each other by way of settlement, for which they have preferred an application under Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Appellate Court but as the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is non compoundable, learned Appellate Court has rejected the application vide order dated 21.09.2020.

4. On 01.09.2021, counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted before this Court that petitioners settled the dispute and have entered into compromise. They have filed an application for divorce by mutual consent before Family Court. On said date, this Court directed the petitioners to place copy of statements of parties recorded before the Family Court. In compliance of said order, certified copy of the statements of the petitioners recorded on 05.02.2021 before Family Court are placed on record. According to their statements, they are willing to resolve their dispute voluntarily without any threat and inducement.

5. Offence under Section 498-A of IPC is non compoundable and petitioner No. 1 has already been convicted by the trial Court and appeal is pending.

6. Question before this Court is whether this Court can allow application for compounding of offence under Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner No.1, which is pending before appellate Court. Offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is non- compoundable in nature. In case of Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, petition was filed in the Apex Court for quashing of case on the ground of compounding of offences by the parties. Larger Bench of the Apex Court in para 61 of its judgment has summarized the power of the High Court as under :

"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised 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 F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and 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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on 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, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put 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 wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."

7. In case of Anita Maria Dias and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 290, question again arose before the Apex Court for quashing of proceedings based on compromise/settlement between the parties. In said case, the Apex Court in para 7 has issued following directions :

"7. In a case like this, where the proceedings are still at initial and nascent stage, the High Court should have exercised its discretion in quashing the proceedings. Law in this behalf is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court including Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr, (2017) 9 SCC 641 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303. We may also quote the following passage from the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr, (2014) 6 SCC 466:

"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles 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: 29.1. 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. 29.2. 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:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) 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. 29.3. Such a power is not to 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 the 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.

29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. 29.5. 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.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are 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 latter 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.

29.7. 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. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.""

8. In view of aforesaid pronouncement of law by the Apex Court, it is clear that High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash proceedings which are overwhelmingly and predominantly civil in character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes. In the present case, there is matrimonial and family dispute between the parties, which has been compromised between them. The only question before this Court is whether this Court in exercise of its inherent power

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash criminal proceedings when appeal is pending before the appellate Court.

9. In case of Narinder Singh vs State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Apex Court has held that inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not be exercised when accused was convicted and sentenced and appeal was pending before the High Court. In the present case, offence said to have been committed by the petitioner No.1 is not serious and heinous offence of mental depravity like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Offence said to have been committed by petitioner No.1 will not have any serious impact on society and same is private in nature. In this case, appeal is not pending before the High Court as was in case of Narinder Singh (supra). If appeal is pending in High Court then petitioner No.1 could have filed an application for reducing the sentenced imposed by the trial Court. Appeal in the present case is pending before Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR and all other subsequent proceedings consequentially will come to an end.

10. In view of same, prayer of petitioner for compounding of offence is rejected, but, this Court exercising its inherent power in the interest of justice and for their future peaceful life quashes the FIR in Crime No. 443/2014, registered at Police Station Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur for offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, in respect of petitioner No.1, and consequentially conviction and sentence and Criminal Appeal No. 25/2020 pending before Court of 24th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur is terminated.

11. With aforesaid direction, M.Cr.C. is disposed off.

12. C.C. as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE vkt Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI

VINOD KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=502f56362111056e3584ca82279e5efd816766cb7c5a1 f490a5ca63b1116883f,

TIWARI pseudonym=064375E039EECAAF492B2C2C606076E420E163D 2, serialNumber=121D0E9F65C983AD56493378702622477111B5 016F24D35FA8A76C2CA46685EE, cn=VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2021.12.10 11:01:09 +05'30'