Jai Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5591 MP

                                                 1

           IN THE           HIGH COURT               OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                        AT I N D O R E
                                             BEFORE
                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                                  ON THE 6th OF APRIL, 2023

                           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29955 of 2022

           BETWEEN:-
              JAI SINGH S/O ANTAR SINGH THAKUR, AGED
              ABOUT      46    YEARS,    OCCUPATION:
           1.
              AGRICULTURIST 218, GRAM PIGDAMBAR
              (MADHYA PRADESH)
              RAKESH GAUTAM S/O BHOLARAM GAUTAM,
              AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
           2.
              PRIVATE JOB 273, GRAM PIGDAMBAR
              (MADHYA PRADESH)
              RAJESH CHOUHAN S/O HUKAM SINGH
              CHOUHAN,     AGED   ABOUT   39  YEARS,
           3.
              OCCUPATION: BUSINESS GRAM PIGDAMBER,
              INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                       .....APPLICANT
           (BY SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR RAWAL- ADVOCATE )

           AND
              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
              HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
           1.
              RAJENDRA NAGAR,     INDORE  (MADHYA
              PRADESH)
              HAIDER QURASHI S/O ABDUL KADIR, AGED
              ABOUT     49    YEARS,   OCCUPATION:
           2.
              SHOPKEEPER, 1805 TAL MOHALLA, MHOW
              (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
           ( RESPONDENT NO. 2 BY SHRI VIBHUTI BHAWSAR)
           STATE BY MS VARSHA THAKUR GA)
           _____________________________________________________________________
                    This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
           the following:

                                              ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 4/6/2023 6:17:43 PM

The petitioner has filed present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR registered at Crime no. 217/2013 at police station - Rajendra Nagar, Indore for the offence under sections 420, 447, 448, 465, 467, 468, 471, 478, 294, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short "IPC".) and also consequent proceedings in Sessions Trial no. 14/2014 pending before the 25th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore

2. Facts of the case in brief are that complainant / respondent Haidar entered into an agreement to sale with the petitioners/ accused persons for sale of plot no. 150 situated at ward no. 1, Rau, District - Indore for consideration of Rs. 82, 85,200/- and at the time of agreement, he had been paid Rs. 1,00,000/- as an advance and it was settled that amount of Rs. 19, 71,300/- was decided to be paid within 15 days from the agreement and rest of the amount would be paid at the time of execution of registered sale deed, but the petitioner did not pay the agreed amount to the complainant and also prepared forged signature of the complainant on Kabuliyat Lekh ( confessional agreement). He also prepared forged acknowledgment of amount of Rs. 19,71,300/-. Thereafter, the complainant made complaint against the petitioners at police station - Rajendra Nagar, Indore, but the police did not take any action against the petitioners, then the complainant / respondent filed an application under section 153(3) of Cr.P.C before the JMFC, Indore directing the police station - Rajendra Nagar, Indore to register complaint against the petitioners. After registration of FIR, the trial Court registered the case under sections 420, 447, 448, 465, 467, 468, 471, 478, 294, 506, 120-B of IPC. Thereafter, the matter was committed to Sessions vide order dated 30/12/2013.

3. Subsequently, on the basis of the amicable settlement arrived Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 4/6/2023 6:17:43 PM

at between the petitioner and the complainant, a joint compromise petition under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court. On verification, Principal Registrar has certified that both the parties haveentered into a compromise without any threat, inducement and coercion from either side and they have voluntarily entered into compromise.

4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the matter pertains to offence registered against the petitioners under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC has been amicably settled between both the parties and complainant has no more grievance against the petitioners. Therefore, continuance of proceedings before the trial Court will amount to sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court and will also result in harassment of the parties.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. 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-à-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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 4/6/2023 6:17:43 PM

not against the society, but merely affect the victim.

7. 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:

"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 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 Signature Not Verified offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 4/6/2023 6:17:43 PM

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 fromthe 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 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 Signature Not Verified in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly, any Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 4/6/2023 6:17:43 PM

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 ases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such 5 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."

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and also keeping in view the 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 th theVerified Signature Not proceedings in Sessions Trial No.14/2014 pending before the 25 Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 4/6/2023 6:17:43 PM

Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.

9. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and the First Information Report registered at Crime no. 217/2013 at police station - Rajendra Nagar, Indore for the offence under sections 420, 447, 448, 465, 467, 468, 471, 478, 294, 506, 120-B of IPC and also consequent proceedings in Sessions Trial no. 14/2014 pending before the 25 th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore are hereby quashed.

Certified copy as per rule

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE amol

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMOL NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG Signing time: 4/6/2023 6:17:43 PM