Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manjit Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 October, 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 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43007 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. MANJIT SINGH S/O IQBAAL SINGH TUTEJA, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O B-
65 JANTA COLONY MANDSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RANJEET KAUR (RANI TUTEJA) W/O NAVNEET
SINGH RAJPAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE SUJALPUR DIST.
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI ATUL KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
CITY KOTWALI DIST. MANSAUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SHREYA D/O VISHNU TUGNAWAT, AGED ABOUT
37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NONE SHIRSAGAR
SHAKARI BAZAR, NAI ABADI, MANDSAUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA, PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT
NO.1/STATE).
(SHRI AMAN MALVIYA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2).
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashment of the
S.T.No.3002224/2014 pending before the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 07-10-2023
11:28:59
Mandsaur M.P. in connection with the FIR dated 11.03.2014 on Crime
No.189/14 dated 11.03.2014 and Final report against the applicants and the
alleged offense under sections 341, 354(a), 376(d), 506 & 34 of the IPC. The
matter is amicably settled between the parties because of the advice of the
senior members of the family. On the mutually agreed terms and application
under section 13(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is filed before the Family
Court, Mandsaur and accordingly the present petition for the quashment of the
offences is also filed.
02. Vide order dated 03.10.2023, the matter was referred to the Principal
Registrar/OSD for verification of the compromise on 05.10.2023. A verification
report has been received in which it is stated that the matter has been amicably
settled between the parties voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and
coercion. There is no dispute remaining between parties.
03. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/state submits that the
offence under section 376(d) of the IPC is non-compoundable.
04. Counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant submitted that the
complainant has no objection if the present case is disposed off. It is further
stated in the verification report that the parties have arrived at compromise
voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion.
05. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicants 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) and SC/ST Act.
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 07-10-2023
11:28:59
(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. It is also submitted that the
statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded in the court and she has not
supported the case of the prosecution.
06. 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).
07. The order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananda D.V.
v. State & another (supra) reads, as under: -
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
T hese 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 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.
T h e 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
t h e 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 07-10-2023
11:28:59
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."
08. Testing the facts and circumstances of the case, on the anvil of the
aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court, this Court finds that the
applicants have also made out a case for quashment of the FIR, as both the
parties have decided to bury their hatchets and complainant 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.
09. Resultantly, present application stands allowed; and
S.T.No.3002224/2014 pending before the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge,
Mandsaur (M.P.) in connection with FIR registered against the applicants vide
Crime No.189/2014 dated 11.03.2014 at Police Station City Kotwali, District
Mandsaur (MP) for commission of offence under Sections 341, 354(a), 376(d),
506 & 34 of the IPC., as also the subsequent charge sheet are hereby quashed
and the action taken against the applicants pursuant thereto be treated as effaced
from record in law. The applicants are acquitted of the charges, in view of the
compromise and judgments passed by the Apex Court.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 07-10-2023
11:28:59
