Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhupendra Singh Rawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 November, 2021
Author: Anand Pathak
1 MCRC-27033-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 27033 of 2019
(BHUPENDRA SINGH RAWAT Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
2
Gwalior, Dated : 22-11-2021
Shri R. K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Nitin Goyal, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Mahendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
With consent heard finally.
The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of FIR
registered vide Crime No.3/2019 at Police Station â€Â" Dabra Dehat,
District- Gwalior, for the offence punishable under Sections 3/4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and Section 294, 506, 34 of IPC and all consequential
proceedings relating to aforesaid FIR on the basis of compromise.
It is the submission of counsel for the parties that they intend to enter
into compromise, therefore, applications under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. by
way of I.A. No.20244/2021 has been preferred. Parties fairly submit that they
want to give peace a chance and for that they want to settle their dispute inter
se. Under the direction of this Court, the factum of compromise entered into
between the parties has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court
and according to the said report, parties settled the matter and intended to
compromise the matter.
Heard.
The case is in respect of offence 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beside
other provisions of IPC like Section 294/506/34 of IPC. Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Mukesh Vs. State of M.P., 2020(1)M.P.L.C. 231
(M.P.) has discussed the aspect of compounding of cases arising out of
matrimonial dispute under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The Court
has relied upon some judgements including the judgment passed by High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Pramod and another Vs.
2 MCRC-27033-2019
State of U.P. and another in application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. No.
12174/2020 vide order dated 23.02.2021.
A Lean Compromise is better than a Fat Law Suit, instant efforts of the
parties indicate the same. It is expected that their bona fide gestures would
continue.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments Jagdish Channa
& others Vs. State of Haryana & another, AIR 2008 SC 1968, Madan
Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji Vs.
Radhika & Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh & others Vs.
State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of
Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another,
(2017) 9 SCC 641, laid down that even in non-compoundable cases on the
basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable
time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material cases.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the
law laid down by the Apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, continuance of
trial in such matter will be a futile exercise which will serve no purpose.
Further the ingredients are not so heinous, therefore, permission to
compound the offence is accorded. 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.
To preserve the resources and bonhomie created between the parties
arises out of settlement, in the interest of justice, application for compounding
the offence vide I.A. No.20244/2021 is allowed because no fruitful purpose
would be served in continuation of trial. Thus, parties are permitted to
compound the offence.
Resultantly, the petition is allowed. FIR registered vide Crime
No.3/2019 at Police Station â€Â" Dabra Dehat, District- Gwalior, for the
3 MCRC-27033-2019
offence punishable under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Section
294, 506, 34 of IPC and all consequential proceedings including proceeding
pending before the trial Court shall stand quashed against the petitioner.
Petitioner is discharged from all the charges.
Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms subject to
aforesaid conditions.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
neetu
NEETU
SHASHANK
2021.11.23
17:48:20
+05'30'
