Akashdeep Arora vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5361 MP

                                - : 1 :-


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT INDORE
                              BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

                    ON THE 12th OF APRIL, 2022

          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46665 of 2021

  Between:-
   AKASHDEEP ARORA S/O SHRI KAMAL JEET SINGH ARORA, AGED
1. ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 31, SADGURU KRIPA
   ADARSH ANGAR, JALGAON (MAHARASHTRA)
   JYOTI ARORA W/O SHRI KAMAL JEET SINGH ARORA , AGED
2. ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 31 SADGURU KRIPA,
   ADARSH NAGAR, JALGAON (MAHARASHTRA)
   KAMAL JEET SINGH ARORA S/O SURJEET SINGH ARORA , AGED
3. ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 31, SADGURU KRIPA,
   ADARSH NAGAR, JALGAON (MAHARASHTRA)
   JAGRATI TUTEJA W/O SAGAR TUTEJA , AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
4. OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE H.NO. 1 PRATAP NAGAR, MANIK
   BAGH ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SAGAR TUTEJA S/O PAWAN TUTEJA , AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
5. OCCUPATION: BUSINESS H.NO.1, PRATAP NAGAR MANIK BAGH
   ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                   .....APPLICANTS
  (BY SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR MEENA, ADVOCATE)

  AND

  THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
  THR. P.S. MAHILA THANA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
  (BY SHRI SUDHANSHU VYAS, PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE.)
  (BY SHRI ASHISH KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
  NO.2.)
                             ORDER

This present petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment FIR, final report and charge sheet filed against the applicants at the instance of respondent no.2.

Facts of the case in short are :-

- : 2 :-

The marriage of the respondent no.1 and 2 solemnized on 18.02.2017 thereafter, dispute arose between them which has resulted into registration of FIR. After registration of FIR compromise has been arrived between the parties and they jointly filed an application under section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and order dated 12.01.2022 divorce has been granted between them with mutual consent. The respondent no.2 has agreed to withdraw all the cases against the applicants. In compliance of interim order dated 12.01.2021 an amount of Rs.29 lacs was agreed to be given to the respondent no.2, out of which Rs.6.25 lacs has already been received and the remaining Rs.22,75,000/- has been deposited with the Principal Registrar, Indore Bench.

Since the parties have entered into an compromise in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation.

In the case of Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1489/2012), decided on 29th September 2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court Held:

"19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences compoundable ‟ within the statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be

- : 3 :-

invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations"

In view of the above, the FIR and charge sheet both are quashed. The proceedings of criminal case no.8962/2020 is also quashed.

The amount of alimony Rs.22,75,000/- lying before the Principal Registrar, Indore Bench in two demand drafts be handed over to respondent no.2.

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

(VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Ajit/-

AJIT Digitally signed by AJIT KAMALASANAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,

KAMALAS postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=156c9cedca1b74d671db9f220a5e3ed 6cba241effad892107d95ef0a1afc55b4, pseudonym=CFDFD9C36711CA738F527A5D61 A1EE901C09EF29,

ANAN serialNumber=7F0BEE2D78BD57DA058F32474 41C87E7E0817FB61F5E2ABCAEE63CAAA7B3B9 FF, cn=AJIT KAMALASANAN Date: 2022.04.13 12:10:43 +05'30'