Madhya Pradesh High Court

Prashant Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2021

Author: Vishal Mishra

                                                                           1
             THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                        MCRC No. 54410 of 2021
    (PRASHANT SAHU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


GWALIOR; dated 08.12.2021

         Shri Amit Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioners.

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

Shri Yogendra Shrivastava, 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.122 of 2019

by Police Station Kotwali, District Datia for the offence punishable

under Section 498-A of the I.P.C and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act and for quashing the consequential proceedings instituted and

pending in pursuance to aforesaid crime number before the learned Trial

Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties have

amicably settled the dispute and hence, filed I.A.No.31342 of 2021

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

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

16.11.2021 stating that offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sec.

3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable. It is submitted that

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No. 54410 of 2021 (PRASHANT SAHU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

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 some

amount has been received by the complainant/respondent No.2 and

remaining amount will be got 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 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 Priyanka Sahu

also appeared before the Principal Registrar of this Court and duly

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No. 54410 of 2021 (PRASHANT SAHU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

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

alimony has also been decided and after closure of the present case and

quashing of FIR, the same will be received to her. Therefore, she prays

for quashing of the FIR and closure of the present case against the

petitioners.

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.

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

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No. 54410 of 2021 (PRASHANT SAHU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

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 quash the criminal proceeding".

The present case is the case of matrimonial dispute between the

parties. Compromise has been entered into between the parties and they

have submitted aforesaid application which was sent for verification

before Principal Registrar of this Court who has submitted report on

16.11.2021. Statements of parties were recorded before Principal

Registrar wherein, they have categorically stated that they have entered

into compromise and have decided not to prosecute the criminal case

and all other cases. The Principal Registrar of this court has also

observed that " After verifying from Complainant/Respondent No.2 Smt.

Priyanka Sahu W/o Prashant Sahu D/o Shri Kanhaiyalal and

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No. 54410 of 2021 (PRASHANT SAHU AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

accused/petitioner No.1 Prashant Sahu, No.2 Harishankar Sahu, No.3