Kanchan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17193 MP

                                                             1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
                                              ON THE 16 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                         MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44836 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           KANCHAN SINGH S/O RAJJU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 26
                           YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O RANIPUR BHATT
                           P.S. KOTWALI KARWI DISTRICT CHITRAKOOT (UTTAR
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SHEERSH
                           AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 POLICE STATION NAYAGAON DISTRICT SATNA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    VIJAY KUMAR TIWARI S/O SHRI B.L. TIWARI,
                                 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O DHOTI BINHA
                                 NAGAR ROAD POLICE STATION BAIDHAN
                                 DISTRICT SINGRAULI AT PRESENT WORKING IN
                                 MAHINDRA AND       MAHINDRA    FINANCIAL
                                 SERVICES LIMITED CHITRAKOOT FIRST FLOOR
                                 TRIPATHI LODGE CHITRAKOOT DISTRICT SATNA
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI A.K.SINGH - GOVT. ADVOCATE &
                           SHRI RAJESH MAINDIRETTA - ADVOCATE FOR MAHINDRA &
                           MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED CHITRAKOOT)

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

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of FIR registered at Crime No.172/2022 and also for quashing of charge-sheet Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETI TIWARI Signing time: 19-10-2023 14:51:10

filed against petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 120-B of

IPC pending in Court of 6th Additional Session Judge, Satna.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that there is compromise between petitioner and Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited Chitrakoot. It is submitted that entire amount has been paid to the Company and as per compromise agreement between petitioner and Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Litmited Company, vehicle is to be handed over to accused persons, as entire amount has been paid.

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner relied on paragraph No.61 of judgment passed by Apex Court in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of

Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, relevant paragraph is quoted as under:-

"61.The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETI TIWARI Signing time: 19-10-2023 14:51:10

serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on 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. In this category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding"

4. Apex Court has laid down guidelines regarding cases where quashment of criminal proceeding can be done in view of settlement between the party. It is laid down that offences which are private in nature and do not have any serious impact on society and there is compromise between the victim and offender and criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavour may be Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETI TIWARI Signing time: 19-10-2023 14:51:10

quashed if there is settlement between the parties.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties.

6. Offence is said to have been committed by applicant in relation to financial transaction. Aggrieved party is Financial Company. Money has already been returned to the Company. There will be no spill over effects on society or on dispensation of justice, if petition is allowed.

7. Considering the judgment rendered in case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (supra), Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed. FIR registered at Crime No.172/2022 so also charge-sheet filed against petitioner for offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 & 120-B of IPC are quashed and resultantly, pending Session Trial No.59/2023 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kanchan Singh) so far as petitioner is concerned, is quashed.

8. Company has filed another petition bearing M.Cr.No.33709/2023 against order dated 08.02.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chitrakoot (MP), by which, their application for grant of supurdginama has been rejected.

9. Since, Company has received full amount from the accused person, therefore, now Company cannot lay any claim on vehicles including vehicle bearing Registration no.UP96M6233. Therefore, petition filed by Company i.e. M.Cr.C.No.33709/2023 is dismissed.

10. Petition-M.Cr.C.No.44836/2023 is allowed and disposed off. Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETI TIWARI Signing time: 19-10-2023 14:51:10

nd

Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETI TIWARI Signing time: 19-10-2023 14:51:10