Ajay Batham vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5454 MP

                                                             1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                 ON THE 3 rd OF APRIL, 2023
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2625 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           AJAY BATHAM S/O SHRI MANOJ BATHAM, AGED: 23
                           YEAR S, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O: WARD NO. 12,
                           MAHAVEER MARG, AGAR MALWA, DISTRICT AGAR
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR RAWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL ALONG WITH SHRI
                           TULJESH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL AND SHRI RAHUL PATIDAR,
                           LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER.)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 POLICE STATION AGAR, DISTRICT AGAR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    VICTIM X THROUGH P.S. AGAR, DISTRICT AGAR
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI PRASHANT JAIN GWALIORY, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON
                           BEHALF OF ADVOCATE GENERAL / RESPONDENT NO.1.
                           SHRI RASHMENDRA SURYAVANSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
                           RESPONDENT NO.2.)

                                 This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                              ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Code) for quashment of FIR dated 20.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) registered vide Crime No.125/2021 at Police Station Agar, District Agar (MP) for the offence under Sections 376 and Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 05-04-2023 18:10:52

506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as the IPC) and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as the Act) and all subsequent proceedings thereto including special case pending before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Agar.

Brief facts of the case are that on 20.02.2021, father of respondent No. 2 / minor prosecutrix lodged FIR at Police Station Agar, District Agar Malwa (MP) stating that on 08.02.2021 at about 04:00 AM, when the minor prosecutrix was sleeping in the back room of the house and her mother and father were sleeping in the front room, at that time, the petitioner / accused Ajay Batham S/o

Shri Manoj Batham came there and knocked the door behind her house. When the victim / minor prosecutrix opened the door, then the accused told her to go back to Tapri, I have to talk with you. When the victim / minor prosecutrix went with the present petitioner behind the Tapri, then the petitioner committed rape upon her. Accordingly, offence has been registered against the petitioner.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and trial is pending before the Special Judge, Agar, District Agar Malwa, MP.

Subsequently, on the basis of the amicable settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, a joint compromise petition under Section 320 (2) 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 on 28.03.2023.

It is submitted by the petitioner and respondent No.2 that the matter has been amicably settled between them and they have arrived at peaceful settlement and have also filed a joint compromise petition, which has been duly verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court. Therefore, the continuance of proceeding Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 05-04-2023 18:10:52

before the Court with regard to aforementioned offences will amount to sheer wastage of valuable time of this Court and will also result in harassment of the parties.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 also admits that the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties and therefore, the prosecutrix has no objection if the petitioner / accused is acquitted from the offences.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the record.

This Court vide order dated 21.03.2023 had directed both the parties to appear personally before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 28.03.2023 for verification of factum of compromise. Both the parties personally appeared before the Principal Registrar of this Court and as per the verification report, the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties and they have entered into compromise voluntarily, without any undue influence, pressure, fear and coercion, but the offence under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Act are non-compoundable in nature.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Sadhu Ram Singh & Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350, while considering the exercise of inherent powers under Sections 482 and 320 of the

Code, has upheld the quashment of non-compoundable offences, pursuant to settlement arrived at by the parties, holding that exercise of judicial restraint vis- a-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

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 05-04-2023 18:10:52

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 Code 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.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, Sonu v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181, Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710, Kapil Gupta v. State of NCT Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2022 @ SLP (CRL.) No. 5806 of 2022 had held that even serious offences such as offences under Section 376 of the IPC can be quashed on the basis of the compromise between the parties where the parties are bound by marriage or are close family members. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken a view that continuation of such cases between family members and between a wife and husband would not ensure to anybody's benefit and would only result in further straining of ties within the family.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments Jagdish Channa & others v. State of Haryana & another, AIR 2008 SC 1968, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji v. Radhika & Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh & others v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, laid down that even in Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 05-04-2023 18:10:52

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.

Relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, nothing survives in the present matter and continuance of trial in such matter will be a futile exercise, which will serve no purpose. Further, the ingredients are mainly under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Act.

Under such a situation, inherent power under Section 482 of Code can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful exercise by the Courts below.

Resultantly, this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code is hereb y a llo we d and the FIR dated 20.02.2021 registered vide Crime No.125/2021 at Police Station Agar, District Agar Malwa for the offence under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings thereto including special case pending before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Agar, District Agar Malwa (MP) also stand quashed against the petitioner.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. No order as to costs.

IA No.4046/2023, an application under Section 320 (2) of the Code filed by the parties also stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 05-04-2023 18:10:52

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE rcp

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAMESH CHANDRA PITHAWE Signing time: 05-04-2023 18:10:52