Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jatin Sukhija vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2023
Author: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 57480 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. JATIN SUKHIJA S/O MANOHARLAL SUKHIJA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
43, VINAY NAGAR, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DEEPAK PARIYANI S/O SHRI DARIYALAL
PARIYANI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O - 14-15 INDRALOK COLONY RTO
ROAD , INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI GAURAV CHHABRA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER .
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
CRIME BRANCH, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SHAILENDRA MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI
SHIVNARAYAN MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O - 37-38 , SHAIBAUG COLONY , KHANDWA
ROAD , INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR PL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
ADVOCATE GENERAL & SHRI GAJENDRA SINGH CHOUHAN, LEARNED
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R-2].
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred for
quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.32/202 at Police Station Crime
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 4/1/2023
6:53:18 PM
Branch, Indore for offences under Section 420, 120-B and 506/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').
02- The facts of the case briefly stated are that petitioner No.s1 and 2
being the partners of a partnership firm, namely, J.D. Developers were engaged
in the business of real estate at Indore. The said partnership firm was formed in
the year 2015 vide a partnership deed dated 27.01.2015. Thereafter, respondent
no.2 contacted the petitioners with intention became a partner in the said
partnership firm and thereafter, through a fresh partnership deed dated
28.02.2015, he was impleaded as partner. Thereafter, a dispute arose between
the petitioners and the respondent no.2 regarding the property of the firm i.e.
plot situated at 5, Ramlaxman Market, Indore. The petitioners have made a
complaint on 09.06.2019 and 24.06.2019 and respondent no.2 also made a
complaint against the petitioners before the police authorities, after due
investigation, the FIR bearing Crime No.32/202 at Police Station Crime Branch,
Indore for offences under Section 420, 120-B and 506/34 of IPC was registered
against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent no.2 and the investigation
is still going on.
03- Subsequently, on the basis of the amicable settlement arrived
at between the petitioners and the respondent no.2, a joint compromise
application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court and the
factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this
Court.
04- It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that considering
the fact that parties have arrived at peaceful settlement and have also filed a
compromise petition, which has been duly verified by the Registrar of this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 4/1/2023
6:53:18 PM
Court, the continuance of proceeding before the Court with regard to offences
under Section 420, 120-B and 506/34 of the IPC will amount to sheer wastage
of valuable time of the Court and will also result in harassment of the parties.
05- It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent / State as
well as by learned counsel for the complainant that amicable settlement has been
arrived at between the parties, pursuant to which compromise petition has also
been filed by the parties.
06- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
07- The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation vs. Sadhu Ram Singh & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 350, while
considering the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 and 320 of
Cr.P.C., has upheld the quashment of non- compoundable offences, pursuant
to settlement arrived at by the parties, holding that exercise of judicial restraint
vis-Ã -vis continuance of criminal proceedings after compromise arrived at
between the parties, may amount to abuse of process of Court and futile
exercise. Taking into account the law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court, in the
opinion of this Court, as the compromise between the parties was arrived at
between the parties, thus continuation of the prosecution in such matters will be
a futile exercise, which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of process of
law and wasteful exercise by the Courts below. More so, offence in question
are not against the society, but merely affect the victim.
08- Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a
judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and Anr. reported in 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 883. Paragraph no.49, 52, 53
and 57 of the aforesaid judgments are reads as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 4/1/2023
6:53:18 PM
“49. Section 482 of the Code, as its very
language suggests, saves the inherent power of the High
Court which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words,
‘nothing in this Code’ which means that the
provision is an overriding provision. These words leave
no manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the
Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The guideline
for exercise of such power is provided in Section 482
itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As has been
repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers no new powers
on High Court; it merely safeguards existing inherent
powers possessed by High Court necessary to prevent
abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends
of justice. It is equally well settled that the power is not to
be resorted to if there is specific provision in the Code for
the redress of the grievance of an aggrieved party. It
should be exercised very sparingly and it should not be
exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in
any other provision of the Code.
52. It needs no emphasis that exercise of inherent
power by the High Court would entirely depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case. It is neither
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 4/1/2023
6:53:18 PM
permissible nor proper for the court to provide a
straitjacket formula regulating the exercise of inherent
powers under Section 482. No precise and inflexible
guidelines can also be provided.
53. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on
the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is
not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are
different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the
power of compounding of offences given to a court under
Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of
criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power
of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions
contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely
and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the
formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a
criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint is guided by the material on record as to
whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of
power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal
or dismissal of indictment.
57. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High
Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct
and different from the power given to a criminal court for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 4/1/2023
6:53:18 PM
compounding the offences under Section 320 of the
Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord
with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case and no category can be prescribed. However,
before exercise of such power, the High Court must have
due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed
even though the victim or victim’s family and the
offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not
private in nature and have serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and
offender in relation to the offences under special statutes
like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that
capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 4/1/2023
6:53:18 PM
purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising
from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership
or such like transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature
and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, High Court may quash criminal
proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal case would put accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by
not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete
settlement and compromise with the victim. In other
words, the High Court must consider whether it would be
unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with
the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between the victim
and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice,
it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if
the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding.â€
09- Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and also keeping in view the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 4/1/2023
6:53:18 PM
fact that parties have arrived at amicable settlement, looking to the dictum of the
apex Court in the case of Sadhu Ram Singh (Supra) and Gian Singh
(Supra), it would be in the interest of justice to quash the proceedings of FIR
bearing Crime No.32/202 at Police Station Crime Branch, Indore for offences
under Section 420, 120-B and 506/34 of IPC pending against the petitioners.
10- Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and the First Information
Report bearing Crime No.32/202 at Police Station Crime Branch, Indore for
offences under Section 420, 120-B and 506/34 of IPC pending against the
petitioners, are hereby quashed.
Certified copy as per rules
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 4/1/2023
6:53:18 PM
