Dr Anamika Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 8440 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8440 MP
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Dr Anamika Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 December, 2021

Author: Vishal Mishra

                                                                       1
           THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      MCRC No. 55550 of 2021
       (DR ANAMIKA MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


GWALIOR; dated 08.12.2021

      Shri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

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

Shri Ayush Gautam, 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 criminal proceeding in Case No. 4814/2021 (State of M.P. Vs.

Gaurav Sharma) pending before JMFC, Gwalior.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have

amicably settled the dispute and hence, filed I.A.No.31614 of 2021 and

I.A. No. 31615 of 2021 under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C stating therein

that the rival parties do not want to further prosecute the criminal case.

The petition signed by both the parties, is supported by their affidavits

with a prayer to quash the criminal proceeding in Case No.4814/2021 as

stated herein above. The compromise was verified by the Registrar on

29.11.2021 stating that offences under Sections 506 of IPC is

compoundable, But offence under section 498-A of IPC and Sec. 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act is 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

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No. 55550 of 2021 (DR ANAMIKA MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

have amicably settled their matrimonial issues.

The counsel for the State formally opposed the prayer.

(4) On perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that all the

disputes were resolved mutually owing to which, the petitioner does not

want to prosecute the respondent No.2. In such circumstances, there are

bleak chances of conviction in this case. The continuation of the

prosecution against the respondent No.2 would be mere abuse of the

process of law in the instant case.

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 and her husband have amicably settled the matter. In such

circumstances, present criminal proceeding registered against the

respondent No.2 as stated herein above may be quashed.

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

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No. 55550 of 2021 (DR ANAMIKA MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

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 quash the criminal proceeding".

The present case is the case of matrimonial dispute between the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No. 55550 of 2021 (DR ANAMIKA MISHRA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

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

have submitted aforesaid applications which were sent for verification

before Principal Registrar of this Court who has submitted report on

29.11.2021. 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

Gaurav Sharma and Petitioner/complainant that they have arrived at

compromise voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion."

Although Section 498A of the IPC is non-compoundable but taking into

consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that it is a

matrimonial dispute between the parties and is being amicably settled

between them and now the parties are residing together, in the interest

of justice, compromise applications filed before this Court are allowed

and criminal proceeding registered at Case No.4814/2021(State of M.P.