Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sneh Sankhala vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14573 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SNEH SANKHALA S/O PREMRAJ SANKHALA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
R/O 31, GANDHI COLONY, JAORA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. PREMRAJ SANKHALA S/O MR.KEWALRAM JI
SANKHLA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE R/O 31, GANDHI COLONY JAORA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SADHANA SANKHALA W/O PREMRAJ SANKHALA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
R/O 31, GANDHI COLONY ,JAORA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SANYAM SANKHALA S/O PREMRAJ SANKHALA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O 31, GANDHI COLONY, JAORA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI MANISH MANANA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
MALHARGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRUTI VYAS D/O SANJAY VYAS R/O 97,
CHATRAPATI NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VISHAL SANOTHIYA - G.A FOR THE RESPONDENT/STATE.
SHRI KAUSHAL SISODIYA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-02-2023
18:33:17
2
following:
ORDER
The present application is filed under Section 482 for quashment of the
FIR registered at P.S - Malharganj, District - Indore for quashment of FIR
424/2021 and all subsequent proceedings for commission of offences under
Section 498-A, 377 and 34 of IPC.
The parties have submitted before this Court on 6/9/2022, that the matter
has been compromised and an application was filed in that regard. The parties
were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for
verification of the compromise and to submit a report. The verification report
has been submitted and it is stated that the parties have entered into
compromise with their free will and there is no undue influence, pressure,
duress or coercion over the parties and the matter has been amicably settled.
Counsel for the State submits that the offences under Section 377 and
498-A of IPC are non-compoundable under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. The
applicant no.1 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife.
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 he permitted in a non-compoundable offence. Relevant
part 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 2 thing as
compounding of offence. They are different and
not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power
of compounding of offences given to a court
Signature Not Verified
under Section 320 is materially different from the
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-02-2023
18:33:17
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."
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.
In the case of Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-02-2023
18:33:17
No.1132-1155 of 2022), the Apex Court held that the inherent power of the
High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wide and can even be exercised
to quash criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable offences, to
secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Where
the victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially civil and
personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings.
In the case of Yogendra Yadav & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Anr. AIR 2015 SCC (Criminal) 166, the Apex Court held as under:-
"Needless to say that offences which are non-
compoundable cannot be compound by the Court.
Courts draw the power of compounding offences
from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision
has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh V. State of
Punjab). However, in a given case, the High Court
can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its
power under Section 482 of the Code having
regard to the fact that the parties have amicably
settled their disputes and the victim has no
objection, even though the offences are non-
compoundable. In which cases the High Court can
exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will
depend on facts and circumstances of each case.
Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave
offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced
by quashing the proceedings because that will have
harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot
be said to be restricted to two individuals or two
groups. If such offences are quashed, it may sent
wrong signal to the society. However, when the
High Court is convinced that the offences are
entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not
affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels
that quashing of such proceedings on account of
compromise would bring about peace and would
secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-02-2023
18:33:17
quash them. In such cases, the prosecution
becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame
prosecution would be waste of time and energy.
That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct
restoration of peace."
In Yogendra Yadav's case (supra) , charges were under Sections 307 &
326 IPC. The apex Court was of the view that the High Court could have
exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. because parties have
amicably settled the dispute and the case did not pertain to an offence of moral
turpitude or grave offences like rape, murder etc.
In the case of Ramgopla & Anr. vs. State of MP (Criminal Appeal
No.1489/2012, (decided on September 29, 2021), the Apex Court held in
para12 as under:-
''12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to
the nature of the offence and the fact that parties
have amicably settled their dispute and the victim
has willingly consented to the nullification of
criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings
in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non
compoundable. The High Court can indubitably
evaluate the consequential effects of the offence
beyond the body of an individual and therefore,
adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the
felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker
with or paralyze the very object of the
administration of criminal justice system.''
In the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 , a
Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court discussed the earlier judgments of the
Apex Court and laid down the principles in para-15. The relevant para-15.1 &
15.2 are reproduced as under:-
''15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482
of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-02-2023
18:33:17
the noncompoundable offences under Section 320
of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil
character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes and
when the parties have resolved the entire dispute
amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those
prosecutions which involved heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on
society;''
In the case of Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , Criminal
Appeal No.1233 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7072 of 2021 decided
on 20.10.2021), the Apex Court held in para 61 that criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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, the proceedings can be quashed in exercise of the powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in non-compoundable cases on the basis of
compounding.
On the anvil of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the facts of the present
case is examined. The applicant no.1 and the respondent no.2 are the husband
and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 13/12/2018 at Jaora, District -
Ratlam. The applicant no.1 and respondent No. 2 have filed petition for mutual
divorce before the Family Court.
Considering the aforesaid, and taking into consideration the fact that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-02-2023
18:33:17
dispute between the parties is of matrimonial nature which has been amicably
settled. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is allowed. The
impugned FIR No.424/2021 is quashed. The applicants are acquitted of the
charges, in view of the compromise and judgments passed by the Apex Court.
With the aforesaid, the application is allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Pramod
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 08-02-2023
18:33:17
