Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shivam Singh Narwariya U/G His Father ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                  01

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           AT GWALIOR
                              BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                     ON THE 6th AUGUST 2024
     MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.30138/2024
     SHIVAM SINGH NARWARIYA U/G HIS FATHER SHRI
                    ABHAY SINGH NARWARIA
                                 Vs.
          STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ram Kishor Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri B.M. Patel - Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Surendra Singh Narwaria- Advocate for the respondents No.2
and 3.

______________________________________________________________
                               ORDER

By invoking inherent powers of this Court, present petition

has been preferred by petitioner under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

seeking quashment of FIR bearing crime No.298 of 2024

registered at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior for the offence

punishable under Sections 323, 294, 452, 506, 34 of IPC against

the petitioners and the consequent proceedings.

2. Alongwith the petition, the petitioner and the respondent

no.2 and 3 have filed I.A. Nos.14097/2024 & 1409/2024 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 passed by this Court, the factum of

compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this

Court, who has recorded the statements of complainants 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. 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."

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. In the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC

688, a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court discussed the earlier

judgments of the Apex Court and laid down the principles in para-

15. The relevant para-15.1 and 15.2 are reproduced as under:-

''15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;"

8. 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.

9. 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, Narinder Singh & others Vs.

State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Anita Maria Dias and

Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 290,

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.

10. 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.

11. Considering the fact that respondent no.2 and 3, complainant

and petitioner- accused person have amicably resolved the issue,

this Court allows this MCRC with the following directions:-

1. FIR bearing crime No.298 of 2024 registered at Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 452, 506, 34 of IPC against the petitioner stands quashed.