Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Somesh Pawar on 10 May, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 10th OF MAY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8285 of 2017
Between:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THRU. P.S. SHAJAPUR,
DISTT. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.S. THAKUR, DY. GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SOMESH PAWAR
S/O SHRI DHARMDEV PAWAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O.BUDHANA ROAD KHATOLI,
MUZAFFAR NAGAR (UTTAR PRADESH)
2. DHARMDEV PAWAR
S/O SHRI CHANDRA SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/O. BUDHANA ROAD KHATOLI,
MUZAFFAR NAGAR (UTTAR PRADESH)
3. SMT. KRISHNA DEVI
W/O SHRI DHARM DEV PAWAE,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O. BUDHANA ROAD KHATOLI, MUZAFFAR
NAGAR (UTTAR PRADESH)
4. PRANAV S/O SHRI DHARM DEV,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/O SUNSHINE BUILDING
ANDHERI WEST, (MUMBAI)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RISHI TIWARI, ADVOCATE )
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
SAN SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
Date: 2022.05.13
10:02:22 IST
following:
2
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.7160/2017, an application for condonation of delay in
preferring this application.
On due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application, I.A.
No.7160/2017 is allowed and the delay of 21 days is hereby condoned.
Heard on the question of admission.
The applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this petition under
Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to
appeal against judgment dated 31.03.2017 passed by Third Additional Sessions
Judge, Shajapur, (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.400067/2016, whereby the
respondents/ accused persons have been acquitted from offence punishable
under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Prosecution story in brief is that on 12.07.2007 the respondent no.1 and
victim got married and have a daughter aged about 13 years. Respondent
Nos.2 to 4 are father, mother and brother of respondent no.1. Due to
misunderstanding between the respondents and victim, there were petty
disputes, which resulted in lodging of FIR by victim against the respondents
bearing crime No.880/2011, at police station Shajapur, District Shajapur for
offence under Section 498-A, 34 of IPC. On 17.03.2016, learned trial Court
convicted the respondents for offence under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and
sentenced them to 01 year R.I. and fine. The aforesaid order was challenged
before the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjapur and learned judge vide
judgment dated 31.03.2017 set aside the conviction of the respondents and
acquitted them. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement applicant/State has
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
preferred this application for leave to appeal.
SAN SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
Date: 2022.05.13
10:02:22 IST
Learned counsel for the applicant/state submits that the appellate Court
has ignored the fact that the prosecution has successfully established the
ingredients of offence against the present respondent / accused persons. From
the statement of independent witnesses Bharatsingh (P.W.5), Jaiprakash Patidar
(P.W.6), Kusum Shrivastava (P.W.7) and Krishna Pandey (P.W.8), it is proved
that the respondents / accused persons have demanded dowry from the victim
and harassed her for not fulfilling their demand. Therefore, sufficient evidence is
available for convicting the present respondent / accused persons, but the
appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and wrongly
acquitted the respondents from the charges for offence under Section 498-A/34
of IPC, 1860.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted during the pendency of
this application, the victim and respondents have arrived at compromise and
now the victim has no grievance against the respondents and she does not want
to prosecute against the respondents. The respondents and victim have
executed a deed of compromise which is annexed with the application
(Annexure-A/1) and they have filed an application I.A. No.5457/2022 for taking
compromise on record and seeking dismissal of this application. Relying upon
the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State
of Punjab and Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, counsel submitted that
certain offences which are arising out of matrimonial or family dispute are non-
compoundable but the High Court may, within the framework of its inherent
power, quash the criminal proceeding, criminal complaint or FIR. On the
above grounds it is prayed that the application filed by the applicant/State be
dismissed.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
Date: 2022.05.13
10:02:22 IST Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the case of Gian Singh (Supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has held as
follows:
"€œ58 ........ 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 victim and the offender and 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 offender being
convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be
casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated."€Â
On due consideration of the entire evidence and the findings given by
the appellate Court in impugned judgment, this Court is of the considered view
that the finding of acquittal recorded by the appellate Court does not appears to
be perverse or illegal, which can be interfered with by this Court. The present
case is arising out of matrimonial dispute. Victim/wife and the respondents have
arrived at compromise. Respondents have already been acquitted by the
appellate Court. The offences are private in nature and have not serious impact
on the society. Resultantly, no grounds are available for grant of leave to
appeal against the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No.8285/2017 is dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
sumathi
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN SUMATHI
JAGADEESAN
Date: 2022.05.13
10:02:22 IST
