Smt.Shaheen Begam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5881 MP

                                  1



                 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       M.Cr.C.No.7956/2019
          Smt. Shaheen Begam & Others Vs. State of M.P.
Jabalpur, Dated: 23.09.2021

      Shri Makbool Khan, learned counsel for the applicants.
      Shri Mukund Chourasia, leanred Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

With the consent of parties, matter is heard finally. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Sessions Trial No.306/2013, pending before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen, District - Raisen and also for quashment of FIR registered under Crime No.438/2012 at Police Station Obdullahganj, Disrict

- Raisen (M.P) for offences registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B/34 of IPC.

It is alleged that in pursuance to the FIR registered by one of the family members of the petitioner, the offence was registered. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Learned Trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioners. Owing to the subsequent development, the parties have entered into an amicable settlement. It is pointed out that complainant as well as the accused all are family members and there was some commercial transaction with respect to property which has now been amicably settled between them. In such circumstances, continuing with the criminal proceedings will be of no help and will be a futile exercise and will amount to abuse of process of law, therefore, an application has been filed seeking permission of

this Court to compound the offences. A copy of the settlement entered into between the parties is filed alongwith this petition.

It is pointed out that initially one M.Cr.C was filed being M.Cr.C.No.21715/2016 for quashing the proceedings pending before 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen which was withdrawn on 24.07.2017 with a liberty to file a compromise petition before the learned trial Court. Again an M.Cr.C being M.Cr.C.No.15272/2018 seeking quashment of the FIR which was also withdrawn on 22.01.2019 with a liberty to file a fresh and in pursuance to the same, present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gain Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2012(10) SCC 303 and also in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 and has argued that the dispute was between the family members and was of civil nature and with the lapse of time they have entered into a settlement, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the permission be granted to compound the offences.

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions and has argued that it is not a simple case of entering into a compromise. An FIR was got registered by the complainant making serious allegations that the accused persons have got executed a sale deed in favour of others without taking permission from the petitioners and they have got executed the sale deeds by presenting some other persons in their place before

the Registrar and by playing fraud and affixing the photographs of some other persons the registry was got executed, therefore, it cannot be said to be a simple case of a commercial transaction between the family members, rather it amounts to a fraud against the society at large because the registry got executed in a government office and that too by playing fraud, therefore, the provisions of Section 467 & 468 are clearly attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Such offences are non- compoundable offences for which maximum punishment of life imprisonment is prescribed. In such circumstances, it being an offence against the society at large, no permission for compounding can be granted. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that an FIR got registered by one Shahin Begam, W/o of Nizamuddin and on the basis of the complaint made by her the preliminary enquiry was got done by the police authorities and it was found that by playing fraud a registry got executed with respect to an agricultural land situated at Survey No.11/1, 11/2 & 13/1, total area 15.13 acre which was an ancestral property and without producing those persons before the Registrar and by making their false signatures the registry was got executed in favour of Reshma Praveen and Durduna Khan and thereafter mutation was also got done. The statements recorded under Section 161 also discloses the similar aspect. Learned Sessions Court has framed the charges against the petitioners/accused for offences under Section 467/149 read with

Section 114 of IPC, Section 468/149 read with Section 114 of IPC and 471/149 readwith Section 120-B of IPC and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case prima-facie the offences appears to be made out against the accused. Although, the complainant as well as the accused persons are family members and they have amicably settled the controversy for which a settlement deed has also been filed as Annexure P/3 in the compilation before this Court but the fact remains that it is not a simple case of compromise owing to a family dispute or a commercial transaction made between the family members. The modus operandi which has been taken up by the accused persons/petitioners for getting the sale deed executed in favour of others without permission of other family members who are joint owners of the property and on the contrary by playing a fraud and by placing some other persons before the Registrar and getting their false signatures and affixing false photographs the registry got executed it amounts to fraud being played with the government officials also. The case law which was relied upon by the petitioners in case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others (supra) Gain Singh (supra) & State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) is of no help to the petitioners as this is not a case of compromise entered into between the family members arising out of a civil dispute or a commercial transaction between them. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others (supra) has held as under:

"Quashing would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case - Court has to apply mind to following - (i) Whether crime against society or against individual alone and kind of dispute, whether civil or criminal (ii) Seriousness, nature and category/kind of crime/offence and how committed (iii) whether offence under special statute, (iv) stage of proceedings,

(v) conduct and antecedents of accused, whether accused absconding, why absconding and how he managed to compromise with complainant"

Criminal proceedings arising out of commercial transaction or a matrimonial or a family dispute when having overwhelming or per-dominantly civil character may be quashed when the party has resolved the entire dispute among themselves but such powers cannot be used in respect of heinous or serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape or dacoity etc. such are not private in nature and are having serious impacts upon the society. It was further observed that no doubt under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the High Court has inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are non-compoundable where the parties have settled the matters between them but such powers has to be exercised primarily and with great caution. It was further observed that while considering the powers under Section 482 to quash the criminal proceedings with respect to a non-compoundable offence which are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on the society, on the ground that there is a settlement or compromise between the victim and 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 compromise etc. In the present case, the complainant as well as accused are family members, it is not disputed, but the fact remains that accused parties have played a fraud by putting some other person in place of joint owners of the property i.e. complainants and has got sale deeds executed in front of Registrar which amounts to offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B/34 of IPC. It is not a simple case that the parties have amicably settled their commercial transaction, it amounts to an offence against the society having great effect and if such offences are permitted to be compounded then it will have a great and adverse effect on the society. No straight jacket formula can be established for compounding the offences of such nature. Compounding in each and every offence depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, no such circumstances appears to this Court, therefore, permission for compounding the offences cannot be granted.

Accordingly, the petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE Jasleen

JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA 2021.09.28 05:17:48

-07'00'