Shailendra Parashar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4521 MP

                                1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
              AT I N D O R E
                              BEFORE
   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

               ON THE 21st OF MARCH, 2023

          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2803 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
SHAILENDRA PARASHAR S/O PRAKASHNARAYAN PARASHAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 310-A
SUDAMANAGAR, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                .....PETITIONER
(SHRI MANOJ SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)

AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
1. OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION ANNANPURNA
   DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SMT. KALPANA W/O RAJESH SHARMA REVENUE NAGAR,
2.
   ANNAPURNA ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                             .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VIRAJ GODHA, ADVOCATE FOR STATE)
(SHRI RAVI SAGRE, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)
      This application coming on for admission this day, the
court passed the following:

                              ORDER

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashment of FIR dated 09.09.2009 registered at Crime No.509/2009 at Police-Station- Annapurna, District-Indore for the offences punishable under Section 452, 354, 327, 506(2) of IPC and consequential proceedings thereto.

Counsel for the Parties submits that because of the brain surgery of complainant, the complainant could not appear for verification of compromise. He submits that application for compounding was filed before the trial Court by the complainant and the said compounding was verified and the trial Court after verification has compounded the offence under Section 506-B of IPC but the other offences are under Section 452, 354 and 327 of IPC which were non-compoundable and therefore they were non- compounding. The complainant has also filed an affidavit before this Court stating that the matter has been amicably settled between them.

Counsel for the complainant submits that he could not file the vakalatnama but he has received instructions from the complainant to compromise the matter.

Counsel for the State submits that the offence under Section 452, 354, 327 of IPC are non-compoundable.

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 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."

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.

Resultantly, this petition preferred under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is hereby allowed and the FIR dated 09.09.2009 registered at Crime No.509/2009 at Police- Station-Annapurna, District-Indore for the offences punishable

under Section 452, 354, 327, 506(2) of IPC and all subsequent proceedings thereto also stand quashed against the petitioner.

With the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Certified copy as per Rules.

                                                   (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
   Arun/-                                                 JUDGE

Digitally signed by ARUN
NAIR
Date: 2023.03.21
19:01:39 +05'30'