Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mahendra Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 November, 2023

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                                           1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT GWALIOR
                                                    BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                            ON THE 29 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50905 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          MAHENDRA JATAV S/O SHRI KHYALIRAM JATAV,
                          AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
                          JANAKPUR KA PURA DHANELA MORENA DISTRICT
                          MORENA M.P. HAL NIWASI GANESHPURA BIJOLI
                          DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPLICANT
                          (BY SHRI ANIL JHA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                POLICE STATION BIJOLI DISTRICT GWALIOR
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    DINESH RAJE S/O MADHOSINGH RAJE, AGED
                                ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/O GANESHPURA BIJAULI,
                                DISTRICTV GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    SMT NEELAM W/O SHRI MAHENDRA, AGED
                                ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O JANAKPUR KA PURA
                                DHANELA MORENA AT PRESENT GANESHPURA
                                BIJAULI, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI PRABHAKAR KUSHWAH - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

                                This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                          following:
                                                            ORDER

B y invoking inherent powers of this Court, present petition has been preferred by petitioner u/S.482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.177/2023 registered at Police Station Bijoli, District Gwalior (M.P.)

for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom on the basis of compromise.

2. Alongwith the petition, both the parties have filed IA Nos. 20797/2022 & 20798/2023 stating therein that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they have entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further.

3. In compliance of order dated 8.11.2023 passed by this Court, the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, who has recorded the statements of complainant - respondents as well as petitioner - accused person and has submitted the report that the parties have

arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.

4. Counsel for the State submits that the offence under Section 307 of the IPC is non-compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

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 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 2 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 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 and Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand and 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 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 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."

9. In Yogendra Yadav's case (supra), charges were under Sections 307 and 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 and 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 Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and 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.

12. In the cases of Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana & another (AIR 2008 SC 1968), Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2008 SC 1969), Shiji Vs. Radhika & Another (2011) 10 SCC 705, a nd Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Supreme Court has laid down that even in non-compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the Court can be saved and utilised in other material cases.

13. In view of the above facts and circumstances and taking into account the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in the opinion of this court, continuance of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful exercise

by the courts below.

14. Considering the fact that respondents- complainant and petitioner - accused person have amicably resolved the issue, this Court allows this MCRC with the following directions:-

1. FIR dated 21.07.2023 bearing Crime No.177 of 2023 registered at Police Station Bijoli District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 307 of IPC against the petitioner is hereby quashed.