Madhya Pradesh High Court

Yash Parashar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2021

Author: Vishal Mishra

                                                                           1
           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      MCRC No. 31374 of 2021
    (YASH PARASHAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


GWALIOR; dated 08.12.2021

      Shri Shiva Parashar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

      Shri B.S. Gour, learned PL, for the respondent /State.

Shri Arvind Dwivedi, 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.160 of 2021

by Police Station Padav, District Gwalior for the offence punishable

under Sections 294, 323 and 34 of the I.P.C and for quashing the

consequential proceedings instituted and pending in pursuance to

aforesaid crime number before the learned Trial Court.

During pendency of this petition filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C, the petitioners and complainant-respondent No.2 have filed an

application jointly stating that the dispute between the parties has been

resolved and they are not inclined to pursue the matter any more. By the

rival parties, application has been filed on 22.06.2021 being IA No

18732/2021 jointly informing about parties having entered into

compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further.

3. It is alleged that the matter was listed on 16.08.2021 and this Court

had directed for sending the matter for verification to the Principal

Registrar of this Court. The statements were recorded and the report has

been submitted by the Principal Registrar of this Court.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No. 31374 of 2021 (YASH PARASHAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

From perusal of the report it is seen that the offences under

Sections 323 and 34 of IPC are compoundable in nature, but offences

under Sections 294 is not compoundable.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of

Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and in the case of

Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika & Another, reported in 2012

Cr.L.R. (SC) 69 and has argued that if the offences are not heinous in

nature and the parties are willing to compromise the matter, then looking

to the fact that facing of entire trial will be futile exercise, the FIR

should have been quashed.

Counsel for the complainant has also stated that they do not want

to continue with the proceedings of the FIR as they have already given

their statements before the Principal Registrar regarding the compromise

entered into between the parties.

Counsel for the State has submitted that the offences under

Sections 323 and 34 of IPC being compoundable in nature and the same

can be quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the

parties, but the offences under Section 294 of IPC being non-

compoundable offences, therefore, the same cannot be compounded on

the basis of compromise.

In this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court in latest pronouncement in

Cr. Appeal No.1090 of 2019 (Manjit Singh Vs. Sate of Punjab and

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No. 31374 of 2021 (YASH PARASHAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Others) while dealing with the case of compromise, has held as under :

"In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions". Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From perusal of the record it is seen that in pursuance to the

incident is said to have taken place on 03.04.2021 and FIR was got

registered for offences under Sections 294, 323 and 34 of IPC at Crime

No. 160/2021 registered at Police Station, Padav, District Gwalior.

During the pending investigation, the parties have already entered into

compromise and the present petition has been filed for quashment of the

FIR on the basis of compromise. The statements were got recorded

before the Principal Registrar of this Court and the report has been

submitted by the Principal Registrar of this Court to the following

effect:-

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No. 31374 of 2021 (YASH PARASHAR 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 No. 31374 of 2021 (YASH PARASHAR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

quash the criminal proceeding".

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into

consideration of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is

opined that 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.

Consequent upon the above said facts and that the accused

petitioners and the complainant/respondent No.2 have amicably

resolved the issue and the offences are being permitted to be

compounded with the permission of the Court. Accordingly, this Court

deems it appropriate to allow this MCRC with the following directions:-

(i) FIR dated 03.04.2021 bearing Crime

No.160/2021 registered at Police Station Padav,

District Gwalior alleging offences punishable under

Sections 294, 323 and 34 of IPC against the petitioners

are hereby quashed.