Govind Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14052 MP

                                                        1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT INDORE
                                                  BEFORE
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                                            ON THE 28 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                       MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35476 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    GOVIND SINGH S/O SHRI JAGMOHAN SINGH,
                                AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. JOB
                                NEW NARMADA BLOCK A-3, FIRST BATTALION,
                                INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    JAGMOHAN SINGH S/O LT. SHRI SABHAJIT SINGH
                                OCCUPATION: RETIRED NEW NARMADA BLOCK
                                A-3, FIRST BATTALION, INDORE (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    MANORAMA W/O SHRI JAGMOHAN SINGH
                                OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE NEW NARMADA
                                BLOCK A-3, FIRST BATTALION, INDORE
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    MEENU     S/O  SHRI   JAGMOHAN   SINGH
                                OCCUPATION: SERVICE NEW NARMADA BLOCK
                                A-3, FIRST BATTALION, INDORE (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                .....APPLICANTS
                          (SHRI AMIT YADAV, ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
                                MAHILA THANA, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          2.    SMT. AYUSHI W/O SHRI GOVIND SINGH, AGED
                                ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE 141,
                                ARCHANA NAGAR, NEAR SCHEME NO. 51,
                                INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
                          (MS. GEETANJALI CHAURASIYA, GOVT. ADVOCATE
                          SHRI ROSHAN LAL SONKER, ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VATAN
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 8/28/2023
8:20:55 PM
                                                              2
                                This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                          following:
                                                              ORDER

The petitioner has filed present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR registered at Crime No. 55/2021 at police station - Mahila Thana, Indore for the offence under sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short "IPC".) and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and also consequent proceedings in R.C.T. No. 2059/2021 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Indore (M.P.).

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on the instance of a written complaint

of the complainant alleging demand of dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- an F.I.R. No. 55/2021 was lodged in P.S.- Mahila Thana, Indore under sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short "IPC".) and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners. Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed and a criminal case bearing RCT No. 2059/2021 was registered against the petitioners. The petitioners have entered into a compromise with respondent No. 2 and thereby filed an application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court, the said application came up for hearing on 27.06.2023 and the learned trial Court affixed the date of 27.12.2023 for hearing of application filed under Section 320. Thereby, the petitioners had approached this Court on the basis of compromise to quash the F.I.R. and the subsequent proceedings arising out of it.

3. Subsequently, on the basis of the amicable settlement arrived 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 have entered into a compromise Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/28/2023 8:20:55 PM

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 498-A, 323, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short "IPC".) and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/28/2023 8:20:55 PM

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 offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/28/2023 8:20:55 PM

acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized 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 in nature and 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 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

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/28/2023 8:20:55 PM

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 the proceedings in R.C.T. No. 2059/2021 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Indore (M.P.).

9. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and the First Information Report registered at Crime No. 55/2021 at police station - Mahila Thana, Indore for the offence under sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short "IPC".) and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and also consequent proceedings in R.C.T. No. 2059/2021 pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Indore (M.P.) are hereby quashed.

Certified copy as per rule.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Vatan

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VATAN SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 8/28/2023 8:20:55 PM