Jittu @ Jitendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1019 MP

     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR


         Misc. Criminal Case No.13817 of 2021


                   Jittu @ Jitendra & others

                              Vs.

            State of Madhya Pradesh & others



Shri Vishwamohan Bhardwaj, counsel for petitioners.

Shri Aman Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the respondent
no.1/State.
Shri Suyash Verma, counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3.


                           ORDER

(24.03.2021)

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the First Information Report in connection with crime no.276/2011 registered on 12.8.2011 at Police Station Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur, for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 506, 324, 364 and section 190 of IPC.

2. The facts of the case are that on 12.8.2011 petitioners abducted and assaulted respondent no.3 Rajesh Rajak, who is the brother of respondent no.2, due to old rivalry. The report of the incident was lodged by complainant/respondent no.2 Kailash Rajak. On that basis, crime no.276/2011 was registered on

-2 -

M.Cr.C.No.13817/2021

12.8.2012 at Police Station Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur, for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 506, 324, 364 and section 190 of IPC against the petitioners.

3. After registration of aforesaid crime, the charge sheet was committed to the Sessions Court as the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners were triable by the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court proceeded to frame charges against the applicants for the offences indicated hereinabove. In the said case, an application under section 320(2) of Cr.P.C., was filed by respondents nos.2 & 3 to the effect that they wish to compound the matter. The said application was signed by both the parties and affidavits in support of the same were also sworn by them. The learned trial Court vide order dated 1.3.2021 has allowed to compound offences under section 323, 506 of IPC, but lateron has observed that the offence under section 323 of IPC is framed along with section 149, therefore it cannot be compounded. The application for compromise with respect to section 506 of IPC was entertained, but in respect of other offences the application for compounding has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that due to some misunderstanding the respondent nos.2 & 3 have lodged FIR against the petitioners. The crime has been registered due to political rivalry between the parties. It is further submitted that the grudges between

-3 -

M.Cr.C.No.13817/2021

the parties no longer exist and therefore an application under section 320 of Cr.P.C., was moved before the trial Court by the respondent nos.2 & 3 stating that they wish to compound the matter, which was supported by the affidavits of the parties. It is further submitted that the trial Court has committed error in not allowing the application for compounding the offences. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance to the Supreme Court judgments in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others reported in [(2008) 16 SCC 1] and Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI (2008) 9 SCC 677]. Contending aforesaid, it is prayed by the petitioners that the FIR may be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for respondent no.1/State has not opposed the petition.

6. The learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 have submitted that they have arrived at a compromise and signed the same and submitted it before the trial Court. The trial Court ought to have allowed the compromise application. Contending aforesaid, it is prayed that the Sessions Trial No.258/2011 registered in furtherance to FIR may be quashed.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] while deciding a case regarding power of the

-4 -

M.Cr.C.No.13817/2021

High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in those offences which are compoundable, held in para 8 as under :

"8. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognized. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under Section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences. Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of offences enumerated in Section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. In so far as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers were described by this Court in B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675 which has been followed and further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter."

8. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others [(2019) 5 SCC 688] held that the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused while exercising the power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non- compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on the society, on the ground of settlement/compromise between the victim

-5 -

M.Cr.C.No.13817/2021

and offender. The Apex Court in para 15.5 held as under:

"15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

9. The Apex Court while decideing the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another [(2012) 10 SCC 303] has held in para 45 as under :-

"45. In a very recent judgment decided by this Court in the month of July, 2012 in Jayrajsinh Digvijaysinh Rana v. State of Gujarat and another (2012) 12 SCC 401, this Court was again concerned with the question of quashment of an FIR alleging the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B IPC. The High Court refused to quash the criminal case under Section 482 of the Code. The question for consideration was that inasmuch as all those offences, except Section 420 IPC, were non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code, whether it would be possible to quash the FIR by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Bench elaborately considered the decision of this Court in Shiji v. Radhika (2011) 10 SCC 705 and by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution quashed the criminal proceedings. It was held as under :-

"13. In the light of the principles mentioned above, inasmuch as Respondent No. 2 Complainant has filed an affidavit highlighting the stand taken by the Appellant (Accused No.3)

-6 -

M.Cr.C.No.13817/2021

during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying the same analogy and in order to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of settlement insofar as the Appellant herein (Accused No.3) is concerned.

14. In view of the same, we quash

of 2011 registered with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of IPC insofar as the Appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned.

15. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above".

The Apex Court further held in para 58 as under :

"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crimedoer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of

-7 -

M.Cr.C.No.13817/2021

Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all.

However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc., or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R., if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed."

10. So far as the case laws cited by the learned counsel for petitioners in the cases of Manoj Sharma and Nikhil Merchant (supra) are concerned, the said cases are also on the same footing. In these cases, it is held that the FIR can be quashed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., when accused and complainant had compromised and settled the matter betwen them.

11. The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashment of the said FIR on the sole ground that the parties have entered into compromise for compounding the offence and filed application for compromise, before

-8 -

M.Cr.C.No.13817/2021

the trial Court, which is duly signed by all the parties. Alongwith the compromise application, affidavits of both the petitioners and respondent nos.2 & 3 were also filed. On perusal of the compromise application filed before the trial Court, it appears that the compromise has taken place between the parties. It is contended that since the parties have decided to settle the dispute by entering into compromise, the trial Court has erred in dismissing the compromise, therefore it is prayed that the order of the trial Court may be quashed and the FIR and consequent proceedings thereof may be quashed.

12. The FIR in connection with crime no.276/2011 registered on 12.8.2011 at Police Station Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur, for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 506, 324, 364 and section 190 of IPC against the petitioners has been registered, out of which the trial Court has observed that offences punishable under section 506 of IPC is compoundable with the consent of person. However, the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 364 and section 190 of IPC are non-compoundable offences. It appears that as the parties have entered into compromise registered against them, afterwards the chances of conviction, therefore, appears to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings.

-9 -

M.Cr.C.No.13817/2021

13. After taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively and also the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the cases cited above, I am of the opinion that the compromise between the parties deserves to be accepted and the criminal proceedings in connection with Sessions Trial No.258/2011 in furtherence to crime no.276/2011 registered on 12.8.2011 at Police Station Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur, for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 364 and section 190 of IPC against all the accused deserves to be quashed.

14. Accordingly, this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. All the proceedings in connection with Sessions Trial No.258/2011 in furtherence to First Information Report - crime no.276/2011 registered on 12.8.2011 at Police Station Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur, for offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 364 and section 190 of IPC are hereby quashed.

(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge M.

SANTOSH P MATHEWS 2021.03.25 11:05:46 +05'30'