Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nisarg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 December, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 4 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48877 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. NISARG S/O DEEPAK KUMAR PANCHAL, AGED
ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB
R/O 3, PADIT DEENDAYHAL NAGAR,
NAVRANGPURA, NEAR ISHWAR BHAWAN, NAV
JEEVAN, AGMEDABAD GUJARAT (GUJARAT)
2. DEEPAK KUMAR PANCHAL S/O (LATE) SHRI
AMBALAL PANCHAL, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: RETIRED, R/O 3 PANDIT
DEENDAYAL NAGAR, NAVRANGPURA, NEAR
ISHWAR BHAWAN, NAV JEEVAN, AHMEDABAD,
GUJARAT (GUJARAT)
3. PRAVINABEN W/O DEEPAK KUMAR PANCHAL,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE, R/O 3 PANDIT DEENDAYAL NAGAR,
NAVRANGPURA, NEAR ISHWAR BHAWAN, NAV
JEEVAN, AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT (GUJARAT)
4. NIYATI W/O ANKIT SHAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O 3, PANDIT
DEENDAYAL NAGAR, NAVRANGPURA, NEAR
ISHWAR BHAWAN, NAV JEEVAN, AHMEDABAD,
GUJARAT (GUJARAT)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI DEEPTANSHU SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF GUJARAT, THROUGH POLICE
STATION NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD
(GUJARAT)
2. BHRUTI W/O NISARG PANCHAL, AGED ABOUT 36
YEARS, 14/5, ALAKNANDA NAGAR, MAHAMAYA
BHAWAN, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 05-12-2023
10:45:16
2
3. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NORTH BLOCK (DELHI) (DELHI)
4. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
MAHILA THANA UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION THROUGH
COMMISSIONER (IMMIGRATION) EAST-VIII,
LEVEL-V, SECTOR-I, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI
(DELHI)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VIKAS JAIN, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2 &
MS. NISHA JAISWAL - G.A. FOR RESPONDENT NO.4/STATE) ON
ADVANCE NOTICE.
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C.. The applicants are seeking
the following reliefs :-
(i) the FIR and chargesheet associated with crime No. 67/2018 under
sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC and section 3 & 7 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 registered at Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
originally registered as crime No. 068/2018 dated 19.5.2018 registered at
Mahila Thana, Ujjan be quashed
(ii) the subsequent proceedings in criminal case No. (cc) 111247/2018
new case No.RCT 3381/2023 transferred from Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad (Court No.21) to the Court of V
Civil Judge, Class-I, Ujjain be quashed
(iii) Any active non-bailable warrants issued against the applicant No.1
by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad(court No.21)
and or the court of V Civil Judge class-I, Ujjain as a consequence of the
above FIR/criminal case be quashed.
(iv) any active look out circulars issued against the applicant No.1 as a
consequence of the above FIR/criminal case be quashed or the
respondent NO.3 be directed to recall/cancel any active look out circulars
issued by respondent No.3 against the applicant No.1 which may have
been issued as a consequence of the above FIR/criminal case
(v) the respondent No.3 may be directed to supply a copy of the
order recalling/cancelling the look out circular to respondent No.5 and to
airport authorities at New Delhi and Mumbai airports so that the applicant
No.1 is able to freely travel to and from India."
2. Facts of the case are that applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 got
married on 19.4.2017 at Ujjain. It is stated that applicant No.1 and respondent
no.2 are living separately since 21.2.2018. The respondent No.2 lodged FIR
No.68/2018 at Mahila Thana, Ujjain on 19.5.2018 for commission of offence
punishable under sections 498A, 506 and 34 of IPC and section 3 and 7 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, which was subsequently transferred to P.S.
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and registered at crime NO. 67/2018. Soon
thereafter a look out circular was issued against the applicant No.1. It is stated
that Apex court transferred the aforesaid criminal cases from Ahmedabad
(Gujarat) to Mahila Thana, Ujjain.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that a compromise has taken
place between the applicant and respondent No.2 who are husband and wife. It
is stated that they have applied for divorce by mutual consent and for
compounding of the offences mentioned at crime No. 67/2018 under section
498-A, 506, 34 of IPC and section 3 and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
4. Counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute the aforesaid
compromise between the parties.
5. Counsel for applicant and the respondent No.2 submit that respondent
No.2 has also agreed not to continue the prosecution and the applicants be
acquitted in the aforesaid offences on the basis of compromise.
6. Counsel for the Sate submits that offence under section 3 and 7 of
Dowry Prohibition Act is non-compoundable.
7. Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute and filed a mutual
consent divorce petition and all other cases between the parties have already
been withdrawn by the parties, the complainant does not want to prosecute the
applicants further, in view of the above, it would be apposite to survey the law
in respect of compounding in non-compoundable case. The Apex Court in the
case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2012) 10
SCC 303 after considering the the provisions of section 320 and 482 of the
Cr.P.C held that the compounding can be permitted in a non-compoundable
offence.Relevant part of the order of the order reads as under :-
"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
from the 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.
B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do illustrate the
principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR
or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of
the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the
High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing
criminal proceedings in B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma
and Shiji this Court has compounded the non-compoundable
offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the
distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320
and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of
inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and
different although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz.
acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment."
8. In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs.
State of Punjab and Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 dated
27.03.2014 after relying on the judgment passed in the case of Gian Singh
(supra), the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable
case and quashed the criminal proceedings.
9. In the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law and taking into
consideration that applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife
and they have amicably settled their disputes, the case pending before the court
of JMFC, Ujjain registered as RCT No. 3381/2023 is quashsed. The applicants
are acquitted of the said charges in view of compounding.
10. So far as the relief relating to recall or cancellation of look out
circular issued by respondent No.5 to Airport authorities at New Delhi or
Mumbai are concerned, the applicant No.1 is granted liberty to make
representation for recall/cancellation of look out circular on the basis of
acquittal in criminal cases.
C.c. as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
