Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravindrapalsingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 13 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52379 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
RAVINDRAPALSINGH S/O SHRI DONGARJI MUJALDA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT R/O
THANDLA, TEH. DAHI, DIST. DHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI AKASH SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PS.
TEJAJI NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RANI DAMOR D/O SHRI DAMOR, AGED ABOUT 33
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: STAFF NURSE R/O
SAIDHAM COLONY. UJJAIN. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. VINITA DWIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
(MS. RAVINA BAIRAGEE - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. Applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") for quashment of the FIR dated
30.6.2021 bearing Crime No.374/2021 registered at P.S. Tejaji Nagar, Indore for
the offences under Section 366, 376, 376(2)(n) & 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") and all consequent proceedings thereto including
the proceedings of the Sessions Trial No.718/2021 pending before the Special
Judge (POCSO)/15th Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore.
2. As per the prosecution story, incident took place about 10 to 12 years
ago. The prosecutrix lodged FIR at P.S. Tejaji Nagar, Indore by stating that she
is posted as Nurse in the Civil Hospital, Ujjain. In the year 2008 she came in the
contact of the applicant and love affair started between them. When the
applicant asked her to marry, first time in the month of May, 2013 applicant
established physical relationship with her in Flat No.13, Shivalika Multi,
Limbodi, Indore on the pretext of marriage and he repeated the same act several
times against the will of the prosecutrix and committed repeatedly rape upon
her. Later on the applicant broke the promise of marriage. Then prosecutrix
lodged the FIR against the applicant.
3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the
trial Court and the trial is pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Indore.
4. Subsequently on the basis of amicable settlement arrived at between
the applicant and the prosecutrix, a joint compromise application under Section
320(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed before this Court and the factum of
compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court on
31.1.2024.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant and respondent
No.2 that the matter has been amicably settled between them and they have
arrived at peaceful settlement and have also filed a joint compromise
application, which has been duly verified by the Principal Registrar of this
Court. Therefore, the continuance of proceeding before the Court with regard
to aforementioned offences will amount to sheer wastage of valuable time of
this Court and will also result in harassment of the parties.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 also admits that the
matter has been amicably settled between both the parties and therefore, the
prosecutrix has no objection if the petitioner / accused is acquitted from the
offences.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused
the record.
8. This Court vide order dated 31.1.2024 had directed both the parties to
appear personally before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of
factum of compromise. Both the parties personally appeared before the
Principal Registrar of this Court and as per the verification report, the matter
has been amicably settled between both the parties and they have entered into
compromise voluntarily, without any undue influence, pressure, fear and
coercion, but the offence under Sections 366, 376, 376(2)(n) & 376(2)(f) are
non-compoundable in nature.
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Sadhu Ram Singh & Others, (2017) 5 SCC 350, while
considering the exercise of inherent powers under Sections 482 and 320 of the
Code, has upheld the quashment of non-compoundable offences, pursuant to
settlement arrived at by the parties, holding that exercise of judicial restraint vis-
a-vis continuance of criminal proceedings after compromise arrived at between
the parties, may amount to abuse of process of Court and futile exercise.
Taking into account the law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court, in the opinion of
this Court, as the compromise between the parties was arrived at between the
parties, thus continuation of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile
exercise, which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 of
the Code can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and
wasteful exercise by the Courts below. More so, offence in question are not
against the society, but merely affect the victim.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003)
4 SCC 46, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9
SCC 608, Sonu v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 181,
Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710 , Kapil Gupta
v. State of NCT Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 1217 of 2022 @ SLP
(CRL.) No. 5806 of 2022 had held that even serious offences such as
offences under Section 376 of the IPC can be quashed on the basis of the
compromise between the parties where the parties are bound by marriage or are
close family members. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken a view that
continuation of such cases between family members and between a wife and
husband would not ensure to anybody's benefit and would only result in further
straining of ties within the family.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments Jagdish
Channa & others v. State of Haryana & another, AIR 2008 SC 1968 ,
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969 , Shiji v.
Radhika & Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705 , Narinder Singh & others v. State
of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana
and another (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10
SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur
and others v. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 , 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.
12. Relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court, this
Court is of the considered opinion that as the matter has been amicably settled
between the parties, therefore, nothing survives in the present matter and
continuance of trial in such matter will be a futile exercise, which will serve no
purpose.
13. Under such a situation, inherent power under Section 482 of Code
can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful
exercise by the Courts below.
14. Resultantly, this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is
hereby allowed and the FIR dated 30.6.2021 bearing Crime No.374/2021
registered at P.S. Tejaji Nagar, Indore for the offences under Section 366, 376,
376(2)(n) & 376(2)(f) of the IPC and subsequent proceedings thereto including
Sessions Trial No.718/2021 pending before the Special Judge (POCSO)/15th
Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore stand quashed against the applicant.
15 Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for necessary
compliance. No order as to costs.
16. IA No. 1851 of 2024, an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
filed by the parties also stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
trilok
