Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Singh @ Sandy vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 November, 2022
Author: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 23rd OF NOVEMBER, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 53221 OF 2022
Between:-
1. SANDEEP SINGH @ SANDY S/O SHRI
RAJENDRA SINGH, AGED 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION, MODEL & ACTOR
2. RAJENDRA SINGH S/O SHRI
VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, AGED 63 YEARS
OCUPATION -BUSINESS
3. RAJESHWARI W/O SHRI RAJENDRA
SINGH, AGED 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION-
NIL,
4. KANCHAN D/O SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH,
AGED 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION- NIL,
ALL ABOVE R/O FLAT NO.1202, ANMOL
PRESTIGE, OPP. PATEL AUTO, S.V. ROAD,
GOREGAOIN WEST, MUMBAI -400104
(MAHARASHTRA)
........PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI AVADHESH PRATAP SINGH SISODIYA -
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH SUPERINDENDENT OF
POLICE, SP OFFICE, CITY CENTRE,
GWALIIOR, DISTRICT GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH) PIN -474011 PHONE-
2
0751-2445300, 0751-2445200, FAX NO. 0751-
2445210 E-MAIL ssp gwalior @
mppolice.gov.in
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER/INCHARGE
POLICE STATION - MAHILA THANA
PADAV, DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHAYA
PRADESH)
3. SMT. KOMAL SHARMA W/O SHRI
SANDEEP SINGH D/O SHRI SIYARAM
SHARMA, AGED 28 YEARS
R/O H.NO. 180, GANDHI NAGAR,
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH) 474002
MOBILE NO. 8454982303
........RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NITIN GOYAL - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENTS
NO.1 AND 2/STATE)
(BY SHRI GHANSHYAM SINGH - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.3/COMPLAINANT)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment
of FIR registered at Crime No.45/2020 at Police Station Mahila Thana
Padav, Gwalior for the offence under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of
IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and entire
proceedings on basis of compromise.
It is the submission of counsel for the parties that both the parties
want to settle the matter and they want to bury the dispute once and for
all. They intend to enter into the compromise therefore, applications by
way of I.A. No.17453/2022, application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for
compound the offences and I.A.No.17200/2022, application under
Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C. have been preferred by the parties. 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.
Parties intended to serve the society in meaningful manner to purge
their guilt and to reform themselves from their inner soul, therefore,
expressed their desire to perform community service by way of deposit to
serve National/Social cause.
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.
According to Section 320 of Cr.P.C., the offence under Sections
294, 506, 34 of IPC are compoundable and as per amendment dated
7.7.2022 under Section 498-A of IPC is also compoundable with certain
conditions but Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not compoundable
but since matter has been settled between the parties, 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, applications vide
I.A.No.17453/2022 and I.A.No.17200/2022 are 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 at Crime
No.45/2020 at Police Station Mahila Thana Padav, Gwalior for the
offence under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and entire proceedings on basis of
compromise stand quashed against the petitioners.
As per the expression and interest, petitioners are directed to
deposit Rs.15,000/- in favour of Juvenile Justice Fund having Saving
Bank A/C No.60411029562 of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch
Govindpura Bhopal, IFSC Code MAHB0001988 (a statutory fund
created for the welfare of juveniles) within 10 days from today.
Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms subject
to deposit of aforesaid amount.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance.
One copy be sent to Secretary, Juvenile Justice Committee of M.P.
High Court at Jabalpur for information.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
AK/-
ANAND KUMAR
2022.11.24
10:26:43 +05'30'
