Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumit Mishra vs State Of M.P. on 22 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 22 nd OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 62661 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
SUMIT MISHRA S/O SHRI KAMLESH MISHRA, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE 57 SIMROL
ROAD. MHOW (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR SAXENA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF M.P. STATION HOUSE OFFICER THR.
P.S. KOTWALI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KUSHBOO D/O SHRI PREM GOSWAMI, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD
WORK GRAM GUJARKHEDA, SIMROL ROAD,
MHOW (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SMT. MAMTA W/O SHRI PREM GOSWAMI, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JOB GRAM
GUJARKHEDA, SIMROL ROAD, MHOW (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. NISHA JAISWAL - PL FOR STATE & MS. SOUMYA PATHAK -
ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF SHRI MOHAMMAD IKRAM ANSARI -
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
The present petition is filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.774/2015
registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Mhow, Distt. Indore for commission of
offence u/Ss.363, 366, 376, 506 of IPC and Sec.5/6 of POCSO Act.
2. The parties have filed IA No.12683/2023 u/S.320(2) of Cr.P.C for
granting permission for compromise and IA No.12680/2023 for compromise
along with affidavit. The applicant and victim have appeared for verification
before the Principal Registrar/OSD of this Court. He submitted a report that
the parties have amicably settled the matter voluntarily without any threat,
inducement or coercion. It is stated that offence u/Ss.506 of IPC is
compoundable, however, the offence u/Ss.363, 366, 376 IPC and Sec.5/6 of
POCSO Act are non compoundable as per Table u/S.320 of Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the order
passed by the co-ordinate bench of this court permitting quashment of the FIR
on the basis of compounding under section 376(2)(n) and SC/ST Act. He cited
the order dated 10.03.2022 passed in M.Cr.C No.59974/2021 (Manoj Kumar
Vs. State of MP). He also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex
Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.394-395/2021 (Ananda DV Vs. State
and Another) dated 12.04.2021, wherein in similar circumstances, the order of
the High Court rejecting the petition for quashment of FIR was set aside and the
FIR was quashed. It is also submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix has
been recorded in the court and she has not supported the case of the
prosecution.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as
also the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananda D.V. v.
State & another (supra).
5. The order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananda
D.V. v. State & another (supra) reads, as under: -
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
These appeals take exception to the judgment and
order dated 14.11.2019 and 30.01.2020 passed by
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
Petition Criminal Nos. 2382 of 2019 and 287 of
2020 respectively, whereby the High Court rejected
the criminal writ petitions for quashing of FIR No.
455 of 2013 dated 17.09.2013 in respect of offence
registered at P.S. Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi and
the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR filed by
the private respondent was that the appellant had
promised her that he will marry her, which promise
was not kept by the appellant. The FIR was
registered on 17.09.2013.
It is not in dispute that after the registration of FIR,
the parties were able to resolve their differences and
eventually got married on 11.10.2014. The
appellant as well as private respondent represented
b y Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel
jointly state that they are enjoying happy married
life.
A joint request is, therefore, made on behalf of the
appellant and the private respondent that the FIR
registered on 17.09.2013 be quashed as it was the
outcome of some misunderstanding between the
parties.
Considering the nature of allegations in the FIR
and the realization of the fact that due to
miscommunication FIR came to be registered at the
relevant point of time which
issues/misunderstanding have now been fully
resolved and the parties are happily married since
11.10.2014, the basis of FIR does not survive.
Rather registering such FIR was an ill-advised move
on the part of the private respondent, is the stand
n ow taken before us. It is seen that the appellant
and private respondent are literate and well-
informed persons and have jointly opted for
quashing of the stated FIR.
Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in the
interest of justice, we accede to the joint request of
quashing of FIR in the peculiar facts of the present
case.
Hence, these appeals must succeed. The
impugned judgment and order is set aside. Instead,
the Writ Petition filed by the appellant for quashing
is allowed, as a result of which, all steps taken on
the basis of impugned FIR be treated as effaced
from the record in law.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
6. Testing the facts and circumstances of the case, on the anvil of the
aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court, this Court finds that the
petitioner has also made out a case for quashment of the FIR, as both the
parties have decided to bury their hatchets and prosecutrix has also filed an
affidavit that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Thus, in such
circumstances, this Court finds it expedient to allow the present petition.
7. Resultantly, present application stands allowed; and FIR registered
against the petitioner vide Crime No.774/2015 at Police Station Kotwali, Mhow,
Distt. Indore for commission of offence under Sections offence u/Ss.363, 366,
376, 506 of IPC and Sec.5/6 of POCSO Act as also the subsequent charge
sheet are hereby quashed and the action taken against the applicant pursuant
thereto be treated as effaced from record in law.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
