Smt. Kiran Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 730 MP

                          1
               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         MCRC.No.3146/2020
(Smt. Kiran Yadav and Another Vs. The State of M.P. and Another)


Gwalior, Dated : 16.03.2021

       Shri Anand Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners.

       Shri Rohit Shrivastav, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.

       Shri Prabhakar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent

no.2

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. for quashing all the criminal proceedings of Session Trial

No.42/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of

IPC pending before the learned Session Court, Bhind on the basis of

compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties have

amicably settled the dispute and hence, filed joint application

I.A.No.644/2020 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 application signed

by both the parties, is supported by their affidavits with a prayer to

quash all the criminal proceedings pertaining to the case as stated

herein above. The compromise was verified by the Principal Registrar

on 02.03.2020 stating that offences under Section 420 of IPC is

compoundable but under Sections 467, 468 of IPC are not

compoundable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance

upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.3146/2020 (Smt. Kiran Yadav and Another Vs. The State of M.P. and Another)

cases of Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and

Another, 2014 (6) SCC 466 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and

Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the prayer made

by the petitioners and has submitted that according to Section 320 of

Cr.P.C. the offence under Section 420 of IPC is compoundable but the

offence under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC are not compoundable in

nature and could not be compromised.

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

disputes were resolved mutually owing to which, the respondent no.2

does not want to prosecute the petitioners. In such circumstances, there

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

prosecution against the petitioners would be mere abuse of the process

of law in the instant case.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and

others vs. 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.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.3146/2020 (Smt. Kiran Yadav and Another Vs. The State of M.P. and Another)

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

Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 in para 61, the Hon'ble Apex

Court has taken a similar view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and

Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, 2017 (9) SCC 641 has

held as under :-

"16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions : 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.3146/2020 (Smt. Kiran Yadav and Another Vs. The State of M.P. and Another)

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or

(ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.3146/2020 (Smt. Kiran Yadav and Another Vs. The State of M.P. and Another)

The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10.There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.3146/2020 (Smt. Kiran Yadav and Another Vs. The State of M.P. and Another)

quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

17. Bearing in mind the above principles which have been laid down in the decisions of this Court, we are of the view that the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the application for quashing the First Information Report in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has adverted to two significant circumstances. Each of them has a bearing on whether the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the FIR would subserve or secure the ends of justice or prevent an abuse of the process of the court. The first is that the appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against them under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second is that the appellants have criminal antecedents, reflected in the chart which has been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. The High Court adverted to the modus operandi which had been followed by the appellants in grabbing valuable parcels of land and noted that in the past as well, they were alleged to have been connected with such nefarious

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.3146/2020 (Smt. Kiran Yadav and Another Vs. The State of M.P. and Another)

activities by opening bogus bank accounts. It was in this view of the matter that the High Court observed that in a case involving extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the appellants were acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. We agree with the view of the High Court.

18. The present case, as the allegations in the FIR would demonstrate, is not merely one involving a private dispute over a land transaction between two contesting parties. The case involves allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation of the complainant of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. If the allegations in the FIR are construed as they stand, it is evident that they implicate serious offences having a bearing on a vital societal interest in securing the probity of titles to or interest in land. Such offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime. In these circumstances, the High Court was eminently

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.3146/2020 (Smt. Kiran Yadav and Another Vs. The State of M.P. and Another)

justified in declining to quash the FIR which had been registered under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 (2) of the Penal Code.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in latest pronouncement in

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

and 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".

In the light of direction issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Manjit Singh (supra) the offences punishable under Sections

467 and 468 of IPC are not compoundable in nature, therefore, the

offences in aforesaid sections cannot be quashed on the basis of

compromise. Thus, no interference is required to be made by this

Court for quashing the offences.

No merits in the petition, hence the same is dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules/directions.

                                                       (Vishal Mishra)
AK/-                                                       Judge
       ANAND KUMAR
       2021.03.23
       11:25:03 +05'30'