Anil Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 21242 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anil Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024

Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

1                                                                     MCRC-25121/2024

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                            BEFORE

            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR


            MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25121 of 2024


                       ANIL KUMAR SHARMA & ANOTHER

                                             Versus

               THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance :-
Shri Anand Purohit- Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Nirmal Sharma- Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1- State
Shri Hari Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Reserved on : 31-07-2024
                              Passed on : 06 -08-2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            ORDER

IA No. 15870/2024, an application for taking additional documents on record is allowed. The documents are taken on record. (2) This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioners seeking quashment of FIR pertaining to Crime No.207 of 2023 registered by Police Station Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 307, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act with all consequential proceedings thereto.

(3) As per the case of prosecution, on 23/05/2023, Akash s/o Arun Sharma admitted at District Hospital, Gohad reported to Anil Kumar Sharma- Head Constable of PS Gohad that he along-with his mother Shashi and Saurabh went to Village Piparsana to demand his share in ancestral property. Around 2.30 in the 2 MCRC-25121/2024

afternoon, he demanded share in property from his grandfather Ramnaresh and uncle Anil Sharmma. Anil Sharma and Ramnaresh Sharma started abusing him in filthy language. Anil Sharma with intention to kill fired on him with country-made gun (katta) but the bullet missed. On the instigation of grandfather Ramnaresh, his uncle-Anil again fired with country-made gun (Katta) which hit over his right ankle. His mother- Shashi and Saurabh Jat took him to District Hospital, Gohad. On such allegations, PS Gohad, District Bhind registered FIR at Crime No.207/2023 for offence punishable under Sections 307, 294, 506, read with Section 34 of the IPC against Anil Sharma and Ramnaresh Sharma (petitioners). Injured- Akash was forwarded for medico-legal examination. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Relevant seizures were made. One lacerated wound size 2.5 cm X 2 cm oval shaped with blackening was found on ankle of Akash. Prosecution for offence punishable under Section 25/27 of Arms Act was added. On completion of investigation, Final Report was submitted on 14-10-2023. (4) During pendency of this petition, applications under Section 320 CrPC and under Section 320(2) of CrPC have been filed by both the petitioners and respondents No.2/complainant for granting permission to compound offence which were registered as I.A. No.11930/2024 and IA No. 11931/2024 along-with affidavits stating therein that they have resolved the dispute amicably and now, they do not want to pursue the matter any more.

(5) In compliance of order dated 24/06/2024 passed by this Court, the factum of compromise has been verified by Principal Registrar of this Court, who has recorded statement of complainant respondent No.2 as well as petitioners- accused and has submitted a report on 27/06/2024 that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement or coercion (6) 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, and Narinder Singh 3 MCRC-25121/2024

& others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Anita Maria Dias and Anr. 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 utilized in other material cases.

(7) Learned counsel for the petitioners, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, submits that parties are close relatives. Altercation over partition of the family property aggravated into alleged offence. Both the parties have settled the dispute amicably and desire to proceed with life. They wish to accord a quietus to the dispute. The criminal proceedings would disrupt the harmony in the family and therefore, the compromise may be accepted.

(8) Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition and cites criminal history of five cases against Anil Sharma and three cases against Ramnaresh Sharma.

(9) In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Anil Sharma stands acquitted in Crime No.380/2019 vide judgment dated 30.01.2021. Anil Sharma and Ramnaresh Sharma were exonerated after investigation in Crime No.166/2007. In Final Report submitted by the Investigation Officer, other two matters relate to petty offences which are pending for trial. Petitioners have never been convicted for any offence.

(10) Heard both the parties. Perused the case diary.

(11) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, continuance of the prosecution in this matter will be a futile exercise which will serve no purpose. The parties are close relatives. The genesis of dispute is trivial in nature. Petitioners have not acted in premeditated brutal manner. No grievous hurt was caused to victim/complainant on any vital part of body. Accused have not taken any undue advantage or acted against law before or after the incident. There is 4 MCRC-25121/2024

nothing on record to suggest that the compromise would have harmful effect on moral fabric of the society or social environment of the parties. It has no bearing on public order. Under such a situation, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful exercise by the prosecution agency and the Court. (12) Consequently, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 302 and Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Ram Gopal and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, LL 2021 SC 516, this Court allows both I.A. No.11930/2024 and IA No. 11931/2024 and in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC directs the FIR pertaining to Crime No.207 of 2023 registered by Police Station Gohad, District Bhind (M.P.) for offence punishable under Sections 307, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC, so far as it relates to petitioners/accused - Anil Kumar Sharma and Ramnaresh @ Naresh is hereby quashed with all consequential proceedings thereto. However, the prosecution for offence punishable under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act shall continue against the accused Anil Sharma.

(13) This petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Office to send a copy of this order to Police Station concerned for necessary information.

CC as per rules.

(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE Prachi

PRACHI MISHRA 2024.08.06 19:26:19 +05'30'