Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ankit Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 July, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 6886 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. ANKIT SHRIVASTAVA S/O SHARAD
SHRIVASTAVA, AGED 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O 1002 A BLOCK BCM PLANET
NIPANIA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAVINDRA S/O NIHAL SINGH SOLANKI, AGED 32
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: DRIVER SOUTH
TUKOGANJ 20/6 BEHIND APOLLO TOWER INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI VISHAL BAHETI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
HEERA NAGAR DISTT. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. AVINASH S/O SHYAM SUNDAR MODANI, AGED 33
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: EMPLOYED D-304, SHRI
CLASSIC SINGAPORE CITY, NEAR MANGAL
NAGAR, SUKHLIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( SHRI HARISH SINGH RATHORE, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE)
(SHRI RAMPAL UIKEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R-
2].
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition invoking inherent powers of this Court u/S 482 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 7/6/2023
5:18:58 PM
Cr.P.C has been filed seeking quashment of FIR bearing No. 54/2016 for the
offences punishable u/Ss 420, 467, 468, 212 and 120-B of IPC and other
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent no.2 has filed
a written complaint to the effect that he had purchased a flat in Singapore
Classic City from the petitioner no.1 on 01.01.2015 for a sale consideration of
Rs. 16,60,000/- which he had already paid over a period of time. It is alleged
against the petitioner no.1 that he has already sold the said flat to one Vishal
Upadhyay in the year 2010 for which sale agreement has already been executed
in the year 2010 itself. Accordingly FIR was registered against the petitioner
no.1. It is alleged against the petitioner no.2 that he is harbouring petitioner no.1
after registration of FIR and therefore, he was charged U/S 212 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that during the
pendency of trial, petitioners and respondent no.2 have jointly filed an
application under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. for compounding of offences on the
basis of compromise. The said application was allowed by the trial Court on
04.01.2023 and acquitted the petitioners from the offences punishable u/S 420
of IPC and for the remaining offences, the appellant filed the present petition.
Hence, instant petition may be allowed and FIR bearing Crime No 54/2016
dated 11.02.2016 registered at Police Station - Heera Nagar, Dist. Indore for
commission of offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 212 and 120-B of IPC be
quashed.
4. Counsel for the State submits that offences under Section 467, 468
and 120-B of IPC are non-compoundable.
5. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 7/6/2023
5:18:58 PM
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 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."
6. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 7/6/2023
5:18:58 PM
case and quashed the criminal proceedings.
7. In the case of Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat (Arising out of SLP
(Crl.) 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.
8. In the case of Yogendra Yadav & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand
& Anr. AIR 2015 SC (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 noncompoundable.
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 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."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 7/6/2023
5:18:58 PM
9. 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.
10. 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.''
11. 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 the non-
compoundable 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 7/6/2023
5:18:58 PM
society;''
12. 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.
13. On the anvil of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the facts of the
present case is examined.
1 4 . Considering the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration the
settlement between the accused persons and the complainant that they have
amicably settled their dispute on the basis of application filed u/S 320 for
compounding of the offences, the learned trial Court has acquitted the
petitioners in the grave offence punishable u/S 420 of IPC . So far as offences
punishable u/S 467, 468, 471, 212 and 120-B are concerned, the same are non-
compoundable and charges have been framed against the petitioners under the
said offences consequent upon framing of charge u/S 420 of IPC. Therefore,
taking into consideration, compromise arrived at between the parties and in the
light of the law laid down in the case of Jaswant Singh(supra) , no purpose
would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings.
15. In view of the above, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 7/6/2023
5:18:58 PM
allowed and the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings arising therefrom
are quashed taking into consideration, compromise arrived at between the
parties and law laid down by the Apex Court. The bail bonds of the petitioners
if any, be discharged.
With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed off.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 7/6/2023
5:18:58 PM
