Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhawani Singh Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2023
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 19 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 51348 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. BHAWANI SINGH CHOUDHARY S/O MERSINGH
CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB R/O 204-A
ANNANAGAR GOVINDPURA DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MERSINGH CHOUDHARY S/O LATE SHRI GUTTE
CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: UNEMPLOYED R/O 204-A
ANNANAGAR GOVINDPURA DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. KALABAI CHOUDHARY W/O MERSINGH
CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O 204-A
ANNANAGAR GOVINDPURA DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. RAMSWAROOP CHOUDHARY S/O MERSINGH
CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: PRIVATE JOB R/O 204-A
ANNANAGAR GOVINDPURA DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
POLICE STATION RANJHI DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. RAJANI CHOUDHARY W/O SHRI BHAWANI
SINGH CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O
HOUSE NO. 2914 SUDARSHAN WARD IN FRONT OF
GANESHGANJ RANJHI DISTRICT JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 12/22/2023
1:51:03 PM
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI C.P. SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for
quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case i.e. S.T. No.76/2020 pending before
10th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.
2 . Counsel appearing for parties submitted that there is compromise
between petitioners and respondent No.2. After compromise, parties appeared
before the Registrar (Judicial) as per direction of this Court and compromise
has also been verified. Registrar (J-II) on 20.11.2023 submitted a report that he
is satisfied that Respondent No.2 is not in any threat, inducement or pressure
for entering into compromise. Compromise appears to be genuine. In these
circumstances, petitioners as well as counsel for respondent No.2 made a
prayer for allowing this petition and quashing of said criminal case.
3. Heard learned counsel for parties.
4. In case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court held that compounding can also be
done in non-compoundable offences. Relevant para 61 of said judgment is
quoted as under:-
"61. 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
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 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 the 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 the 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."
5. In case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court has held that criminal
cases having overwhelmingly and per-dominantly civil flavour stand on different
footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly 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.
6. In view of aforesaid legal position and circumstances of the case, no
useful purpose will be served in continuing criminal proceeding against the
petitioners, therefore, S.T. No.76/2020 pending before 10 th Additional Sessions
Judge, Jabalpur arising out of Crime No.542/2019 registered at Police Station
Ranjhi District Jabalpur for committing offences under Sections 498-A & 377
of IPC and Sections 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against petitioners, is
quashed.
7. Accordingly, petition filed by petitioners is allowed.
8. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
pn
