Umashankar @ Umesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 7195 MP

                                                            1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                  ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2023
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43911 of 2022

                           BETWEEN:-
                           UMASHANKAR @ UMESH S/O SHRI HARIRAM
                           DHANUKA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                           LABOR R/O SURANA P.S BILPANK (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI NILESH DAVE - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                 HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
                                 MANAKCHOWK (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    PROSECUTRIX X THROUGH P.S. MANAK CHOUK
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI H.S RATHORE - G.A.
                           SHRI H.C TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE FOR THE COMPLAINANT)

                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

                           following:
                                                             ORDER

1. The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed seeking for quashment of the FIR No./Crime No.466/2016, under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)

(n), 120B of the IPC and under Section 3/4(gha), 7/8 of POCSO Act, registered at P.S - Manak chouk, Ratlam and quashing of criminal case S.S.T No. 225/2016 which has been registered and pending before the Court of Special Session Judge, POCSO Act, Ratlam(M.P.). The parties filed I.A

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 04-05-2023 18:03:24

No.13002/2022 for compounding of the offences.

2. By order dated 06/2/2023, the matter was placed for verification of compromise before the Principal Registrar, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore.

3. After the verification, a report has been submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties without any pressure, force or coercion.

4. Counsel for the State submits that the offences under Section 363, 376(2) (N), 366 of IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act are non compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.

5. Per contra, 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). 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.

6. 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).

7. The order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananda D.V. vs. State & another (supra) reads, as under: -

"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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 04-05-2023 18:03:24

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 by 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 now 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."

8. Testing the facts and circumstances of the case, on the anvil of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 04-05-2023 18:03:24

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.

9. Resultantly, present application stands allowed; and FIR registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.466/2016 dated 3/8/2016 at Police Station Manak Chouk, District Ratlam (M.P.) for commission of offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n),120B of the IPC and Sections 3/4(gha), 7/8 of POCSO Act, 2012 as also the criminal case S.S.T no.225/2016 pending before the Court of Special Session Judge, Ratlam are hereby quashed, if not already concluded.

10. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed off. CC as per rules.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE Pramod

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRAMOD KUSHWAHA Signing time: 04-05-2023 18:03:24