Madhya Pradesh High Court
Navneet Singolkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 April, 2023
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 11 th OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15376 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. NAVNEET SINGOLKAR S/O SHRI SADANAND
SINGOLKAR R/O. 549, C-3, SECTOR B PIPLANI
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. LALITA SINGOLKAR W/O SHRI SADANAND
SINGOLKAR R/O 549, C-3, SECTOR-B, PIPLANI,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
( SHRI LAL JI KUSHWAHA, - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
S.H.O. POLICE STATION MAHILA BHOPAL POLICE
HEADQUARTERS DISTT. BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. VAISHALI SINGOLKAR W/O NAVNEET
SINGOLKAR R/O MIG- 199 B, HOUSING BOARD
AMRARI GONWA, SEVANIYA BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI SATYAPAL CHADAR - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/
STATE.
SHRI HANSRAJ SINGH BAGRI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed for invoking inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of FIR bearing Crime
Signature Not Verified
No.29/2016 and subsequent proceedings for commission of offence punishable
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 4/12/2023
11:16:50 AM
under Sections 498-A, 34 of IPC read with Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act against the petitioners.
2. On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the parties
have filed I.A. No.5414/2023 an application for compromise under Sections
320(2) of Cr.P.C.
3. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of respondent no.2 Smt.
Vaishali Singolkar was solemnized with petitioner No.1- Navneet Singolkar as
per Buddhist customs on 11.11.2011.
4. The respondent No.1 lodged an FIR against the petitioners for the offence
punishable under Sections 498A, 34 of IPC read with Section 3, 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. Seeking quashment of proceedings of FIR No.29/2016
registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhopal, this petition under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed. During pendency of this petition, both the
parties filed an application for seeking compromise before this Court.
5. The parties have amicably settled their differences by way of mutual
settlement. Pursuant to the same on 5.4.2023, parties were directed to appear
before the Registrar (J-II) for verifying the genuineness and correctness of the
compromise.
6. On 5.4.2023 parties appeared before the Registrar (J-II) who recorded the
statement of petitioner No.1 as well as respondent no.2. Both the parties have
supported the factum of amicable settlement between them. They entered into
compromise without any threat, inducement or pressure with the applicant.
Registrar (J-II) in his report has mentioned that compromise appears to be
genuine and authentic. Parties have been duly identified by their counsel.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 4/12/2023
11:16:50 AM
parties placing reliance on the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs.
Babita Raghuwanshi and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.447/2013
vide judgment dated 15.03.2013 by the Supreme Court, Jagdish Channa and
others vs. State of Haryana and another -AIR 2008 SC 1968, Madan
Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab - AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji vs. Radhika
and another - (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh and others vs. State of
Punjab- (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 have submitted that criminal proceedings
arising out of matrimonial disputes can be quashed by the Court, if the Court is
satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably.
8. It is not in dispute that on the case in hand, subsequent to filing of criminal
case under Sections 498A, 34 of IPC read with Section 3, 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and
executed a compromise/settlement and pursuant thereto, filed the said
compromise before this Court with a request to take the same on record and to
drop the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein. It is also not in
dispute that respondent no.2/wife before the Registrar (J-II) has stated that she
has entered into the compromise and did not wish to pursue criminal
proceedings against the petitioners and fully supported the contents of the
compromise application.
9. In the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) Hon'™ble Supreme
Court held as under:-
"9. ÂœLearned counsel for the parties, by drawing our
attention to the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi and
Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC
675, submitted that in an identical circumstance, this Court
held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 4/12/2023
11:16:50 AM
under Section 482 can quash criminal proceedings in
matrimonial disputes where the dispute is entirely private
and the parties are willing to settle their disputes
amicably. It is not in dispute that the facts in B.S. Joshi
(supra) are identical and the nature of the offence and the
question of law involved are almost similar to the one in
hand. After considering the law laid down in State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and
explaining the decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye vs.
State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Surendra Nath
Mohanty & Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238
and Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, this Court held:
"8. ... We are, therefore, of the view that if for the
purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of
FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be
a bar to the exercise of power of quashing.
It is, however, a different matter depending upon the
facts and circumstances of each case whether to
exercise or not such a power. Considering
matrimonial matters, this Court also held:
"12. The special features in such matrimonial
matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the
court to encourage genuine settlements of
matrimonial disputes."
10) As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after
filing of a complaint in respect of the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of IPC,
the parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual
settlement and the complainant also has sworn an
affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants.
That was the position before the trial Court as well
as before the High Court in a petition filed under
Section 482 of the Code. A perusal of the
impugned order of the High Court shows that
because the mutual settlement arrived at between
the parties relate to non-compoundable offence, the
Signature Not Verified
court proceeded on a wrong premise that it cannot
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 4/12/2023
11:16:50 AM
be compounded and dismissed the petition filed
under Section 482. A perusal of the petition before
the High Court shows that the application filed by
the appellants was not for compounding of non-
compoundable offences but for the purpose of
quashing the criminal proceedings.
11) The inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered.
In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has upheld the
powers of the High Court under Section 482 to
quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a
private nature and a compromise is entered into
between the parties who are willing to settle their
differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said
decision is directly applicable to the case on hand
and the High Court ought to have quashed the
criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement
arrived at.
12) In our view, it is the duty of the courts to
encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial
disputes, particularly, when the same are on
considerable increase. Even if the offences are
non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial
disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties
have settled the same amicably and without any
pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing
ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not
be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of
FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal
proceedings."
10. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in
exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or
complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section
320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 4/12/2023
11:16:50 AM
Section 482 of the Code.
In the case of Narinder Singh(supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under
:-
"ÂœIn view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and
lay down the following principles by which the High
Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to
the settlement between the parties and exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting
the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing
to accept the settlement with direction to continue with
the criminal proceedings."
In the case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court held as under:-
"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
Signature Not Verified
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 4/12/2023
11:16:50 AM
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 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."
11. In the light of the aforesaid position of law, this Court is of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 4/12/2023
11:16:50 AM
considered opinion that the aim and object of law is not only to punish the
culprit, but, the objective of the law is also to maintain peace, tranquility and
harmony in society. If there is a compromise between husband and wife and
they are ready to compromise in terms of applications for seeking compromise
under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.. The main objective of which is to settle down
in life and live peacefully. There is a need to encourage matrimonial relations so
that the parties may think over their defaults and settle their disputes amicably
by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes
years and years to conclude and in that process the parties loose their precious
years in attending their cases in different Courts.
12. Therefore, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'™ble Apex Court
in the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra), Gian Singh (supra) and
consistent view of this Court in similar matters, this Court in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allow
the present application and quash the proceedings of FIR No.29/2016
registered as P.S. Mahila Thana, Bhopal and subsequent proceedings under
Sections under Sections 498A, 34 of IPC read with Section 3, 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act , on the basis of compromise so entered into between the
parties.
13. Petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL)
JUDGE
mrs. mishra
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DEEPA MISHRA
Signing time: 4/12/2023
11:16:50 AM
