Madhya Pradesh High Court

Brajendra Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2023

Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 8th OF AUGUST, 2023
MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.30717 OF 2023

BETWEEN:-

1. BRAJENDRA GURJAR, S/O NABAL SINGH
GURJAR, AGED 45 YEARS,
2. VEERAN SINGH GURJAR, S/O NABAL
SINGH, AGED 42 YEARS,
3. LOKENDRA SINGH GURJAR, S/O
VIRENDRA SINGH GURJAR, AGED 23
YEARS,
4. SACHIN GURJAR, S/O VIRENDRA SINGH
GURJAR, AGED 19 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O VILLAGE LANGURI,
POLICE STATION KARERA, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH).
........APPLICANTS

(BY SHRI AMIT LAHOTI - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SHO POLICE STATION KARERA,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH).
2. SMT. NEERAJ, W/O RAMLAKHILAWAN
GURJAR, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
JERAWA, HAJINAGAR, HALL BLOCK KE
PEECHE, KARERA, DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH).

........RESPONDENTS

(SHRI GIRDHARI SINGH CHAUHAN - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
(SHRI RINKU SHAKYA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
2

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

Case diary is available.

2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred to quash the FIR bearing Crime No.110/2023 registered at Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 34 and 326 read with 34 of IPC as well as consequential criminal proceedings pending against the applicants.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that applicants are brothers and nephews of complainant-Smt. Neeraj. A civil dispute with regard to their father's land situated at village Languri Tiraha was going on in Civil Court, Karera, District Shivpuri, as applicants without informing the complainant got registered/mutated the whole aforesaid land in their names. On 7/2/2023 at about 10:30 hours applicants were putting soil on the aforesaid land and when complainant and her husband Ramkhilawan objected, they started abusing filthy languages to the complainant. Applicant Brijendra assaulted the complainant by an axe on the little finger of her right hand, while other applicants assaulted her by kicks and fists, due to which she sustained grievous injuries. On the same day at about 11:41 hours on the basis of the complainant's oral complaint, NCR No.72/2023 was lodged against the applicants and the complainant was sent for medical examination, whereafter, after receiving the MLC report, FIR bearing Crime No.110/2023 was lodged against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323,

324 read with 34 and 504 of IPC. After receiving the x-ray report with regard to the injury found on complainant's right hand's little finger, offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC was enhanced.

4. During pendency of the investigation, applicants preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the aforesaid FIR and consequential criminal proceedings pending against them on the basis of compromise entered into with the complainant. Alongwith the petition, an application for grant of permission to compromise the offence and a compromise application alongwith affidavits of the applicants and complainant were also filed. Vide order dated 17/7/2023 parties were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the factum of aforesaid applications. In compliance of the order of this Court, applicants and complainant appeared on 19/7/2023 before the Principal Registrar of this Court. Their statements were recorded. Whereafter, report dated 19/7/2023 verifying the factum of compromise between the parties was submitted.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that admittedly applicants no.1 and 2 are the real brothers of respondent no.2/complainant while applicants no.3 and 4 are her nephews. A property dispute was going on in between the applicants and complainant, due to which a quarrel took place on the date of incident. All the injuries, except the injury found on complainant's right hand's little finger, are simple in nature. The grievous injury said to be caused by the applicants on complainant's right hand's little finger was found on non-vital part of the body of complainant. Parties have resolved their dispute amicably and complainant in her statement recorded before the Principal Registrar of this Court admitted that she has arrived at

compromise with the applicants voluntarily without any threat inducement or coercion. Their relations have become cordial. Therefore, in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Maria Dias and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2018) 3 SCC 290, judgment dated 29/9/2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012 (Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh), judgment dated 25/10/2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1393/2011 (Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) and an order dated 12/5/2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.49062/2022 (Lalo @ Jitendra Gurjar Vs. The State of M.P. and another), the FIR bearing Crime No.110/2023 lodged against the applicants and consequential criminal proceedings pending against the applicants are liable to be quashed, hence, the same may be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/State has opposed the prayer, while learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant has supported the prayer and submits that as the respondent no.2/complainant has voluntarily entered into a compromise with the applicants without any threat, inducement or coercion, therefore, the compromise application submitted by the applicants may be accepted and the FIR lodged against them as well as consequential criminal proceedings pending against them may be quashed.

7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

8. Before considering the merits of the case, it is apposite to see the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir alias

Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State of Gujarat and another, AIR 2017 SC 4843 referring the judgments passed in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, which has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Anita Maria Das (Supra) cited by learned counsel for the applicants, summarized the principles as follows:-

15. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse

of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic

offences involving the financial and economic well- being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.

10. In the instant case, admittedly applicants no.1 and 2 are the real brothers of respondent no.2, i.e. complainant, while applicants no.3 and 4 are her nephews. As per prosecution case itself, there was a property dispute between the applicants and respondent no.2/complainant and on the date of incident a quarrel took place when applicants were putting soil on the disputed land. Respondent no.2/complainant in her statement recorded before the Principal Registrar of this Court stated that she has entered into a compromise with the applicants voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion. Prosecution case is based on the statement of respondent no.2, i.e. complainant, her husband- Ramkhilawan and brother-in-law Surendra Gurjar, therefore, keeping in mind the minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of prosecution case and the fact that a settlement between the parties would lead to better relations between them and would resolve a festering private dispute, in view of this Court, it would be unnecessary to drag the proceedings. Under such a situation, Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful exercise by the Courts below.

11. Accordingly, in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the FIR bearing Crime No.110/2023 registered at Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri for the offences punishable under Sections

323, 324, 504, 34 and 326 read with 34 of IPC as well as consequential criminal proceedings pending against the applicants are quashed.

12. With aforesaid, the application stands allowed.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2023.08.11 14:52:39 +05'30'