Yashsvi Bharil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 6926 MP

                                                          1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                              ON THE 28 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                       MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54630 of 2022

                         BETWEEN:-
                         YASHSVI BHARIL S/O SUDHEESH BHARIL, AGED ABOUT
                         24 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O MIG 99,
                         SHIVNAGAR, JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                         (BY SHRI ANVESH SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)

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

                         2.    RAVI PRAJAPATI S/O LATE RAMDAS PRAJAPATI,
                               AGED    ABOUT     32   YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                               CHHATARPUR, TEHSIL PANAGAR, JABALPUR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         3.    PARVATI BAI PRAJAPATI W/O LATE RAMDAS
                               PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
                               CHHATARPUR, TEHSIL PANAGAR, JABALPUR
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                         (SHRI L.A.S. BAGHEL - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
                         NO.1/STATE)
                         (SHRI ANKIT KUMAR SHAHWAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2
                         AND 3)

                               This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                         following:
                                                           ORDER

The counsel for the petitioner and also for complainant appeared with the parties and they stated before the Court that they have entered into Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/4/2023 5:19:12 PM

compromise and settled their dispute, therefore, the complainant does not want to prosecute the matter against the petitioner and as such, the criminal proceedings initiated against the present petitioner in pursuance to their complaint registered vide FIR No.637/2021 at Police Station Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code be quashed.

2 . This petition is under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner saying that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence by the police despite the fact that the complainant and the witnesses have not taken the name of present petitioner.

3. As per the case of prosecution, on 02.11.2021, the injured namely Ravi Kumar Prajapati S/o Late Ramdas Prajapati became unconscious as he sustained a gun shot injury, but he has not seen any of the accused persons, therefore, the statement of eye witness namely Smt. Parvati Prajapati, the mother of the present petitioner, was recorded and as such, Dehati Nalishi was written against unknown persons caused gun shot injury to the injured with an intention to kill him. Initially, the offence was registered vide Crime No.0/2021 and after investigation, the offence got registered against the petitioner and other accused persons. On 01.11.2021 at about 11:00 p.m. when the complainant/mother of injured/Ravi Prajapati visited the shop of her elder son namely Anil Prajapati, the injured/Ravi Prajapati was also present near the shop, then all of a sudden on two motorcycles few persons came and shot fire upon the injured due to which the injured sustained a gun shot injury on his back and immediately he fell down then he was brought to the hospital and thereafter offence was registered.

4. As per the statement of complainant, the present petitioner was falsely implicated by the police in the alleged crime because the complainant, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/4/2023 5:19:12 PM

who is the eye witness, has not seen the present petitioner causing any injury to the injured/Ravi Prajapati and even in the CCTV footage, the present petitioner was not identified. They repeatedly made complaints to the police that the persons who caused injury to the injured are not being arrested by the police, but no heed was paid to their voice. They have also given an affidavit in the Court that it is not the petitioner, but there are other persons who caused injury despite that nothing was done by the police.

5. According to the petitioner, though offence of 307 is not compoundable, but still this Court exercising the inherent power provided under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can compound the offence if parties entered into settlement.

6. In the present case, the parties have submitted their affidavits and stated before the Court that the present petitioner was not involved in the alleged crime and he has been falsely implicated. The parties were directed to record their statement before the Registry and as such, their statement was recorded in which the injured/Ravi Kumar Prajapati has stated that he entered into compromise with the present petitioner as he was not involved in the alleged crime, therefore, he does not want to prosecute the matter against him. The mother of the injured, who is the complainant, has also stated before the Registry that the present petitioner was not involved in the alleged crime and he

has been falsely implicated by the police. The petitioner has also stated before the Registry that he has been falsely implicated and he has no role to play in the alleged crime.

7. The counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as for the complainant and submitted that the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/4/2023 5:19:12 PM

offence is non-compoundable and as such, merely because parties entered into compromise, permission for compounding the offence cannot be granted.

8. The counsel for the petitioner has given several judgments of the Supreme Court on this point saying that exercising inherent powers of 482, the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings even involving non- compoundable offences in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

9. The judgment on which the petitioner has relied upon is (2012) 10 SCC 303 (Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr) in which it has been held that even in non-compoundable offence, permission for compounding the offence can be granted on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. This Court has also passed an order in M.Cr.C. No.11456/2020 (Madhur Baghrecha vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) decided vide order dated 14.01.2022, in which the Court relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (2019) 18 SCC 191 (Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and others) and (2019) 9 SCC 608 (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and another) quashed the FIR and also the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto.

10. He also placed reliance upon an order of the Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.105/2021 arising out of SLP (cri.) No.6289/2020 (Vishwas Bhandari vs. The State of Punjab and another) and also the orders of this Court passed in M.Cr.C. No.50026/2022 (Anil Bhadouriya @ Pappu vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and M.Cr.C. No.2803/2023 (Shailendra Parashar vs. State of M.P. and others), in which the Court entertaining the petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR in non-compoundable offences for the reason that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/4/2023 5:19:12 PM

parties arrived at settlement and entered into compromise, quashed the FIR and also the proceedings arisen out of the same.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, when repeatedly the injured and the complainant, who was eye witness, stating that the present petitioner was not involved in the alleged crime and he has not caused any injury to the injured, the authority did not take into account the statement of the witnesses and even not considered the complaint made by them to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur saying that it is not the present petitioner, but some other person assaulted the injured/ Ravi Kumar Prajapati and caused injury to him, nothing has been done, therefore, I am of the opinion that the offence in respect of the present petitioner registered vide FIR No.637/2021 at Police Station Gorakhpur, District Jabalpur under Section 307 and 34 of IPC and other proceedings arisen out of said crime are required to be quashed and as such, petition is disposed of. The FIR No.637/2021 registered against the present petitioner is hereby quashed and consequently the proceedings arisen out of the said FIR are also quashed.

12. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/4/2023 5:19:12 PM