Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Malviya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 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 1 st OF MARCH, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 58738 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. AMIT MALVIYA S/O SHRI REWAJI MALVIYA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GOVERNMENT SERVICE BAJAR DHANA GAUTAM
ELECTRONICS GHODA BONGRI, DISTRICT BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. KALA W/O REWAJI MALVIYA, AGED ABOUT
70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O 45
GHODA DONGRI, BAJARDHANA DIST - BETUL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY MS.POORVA MAHAJAN- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
KHATEGAON, DISTRICT DEWAS. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. PRIYANKA SATANKAR W/O AMIT MALVIYA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE R/O A.N-67-C ANKIT PARISAR, RAJHARSH
COLONY, NAYAPURA KOLAR ROAD BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI R.S BAIS - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE AND MS.ARCHANA
SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition is filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 01/03/2023
6:28:37 PM
quashment of FIR on the complaint of respondent no.2 bearing crime
no.556/2019 for commission of offence under section 498-A, 294, 323, 506, 34
of the IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were registered at police
station Khategaon and charge sheet dated 23.12.2020 and criminal proceedings
(RCT No.728/2020).
The parties were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar/OSD
for verification of compromise. The verification report has been received in
which it is stated that the parties have voluntarily entered into the compromise
out of their free will and there is no undue influence, pressure, force, duress or
coercion.
Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence under
section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is not compoundable under section
320 of the CRPC.
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 was 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
o f f e n c e . 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 01/03/2023
6:28:37 PM
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
ul ti ma te 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 backdrop of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the facts of the
present case are examined. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 are
husband and wife and they were married in the year 2018. The parties have also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 01/03/2023
6:28:37 PM
filed a petition seeking divorce on mutual consent under section 13(b) of the
Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Bhopal.
In view of the aforesaid facts and the compromise between the parties,
the impugned FIR registered at crime no.556/2019 registered at police station
Khategaon for offence under section 498-A, 294, 323, 506/34 of the IPC and
3,4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and subsequent proceedings are quashed.
The petition is allowed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 01/03/2023
6:28:37 PM
