Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Chandra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 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 19 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 994 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. JAGDISH CHANDRA SHARMA S/O MATHURALAL
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
N.A. 46-A, ROYAL TOWN, KHEDLI FATHAK,
BHEEMGANJ MANDI KOTA, DIST. KOTA
(RAJASTHAN)
2. SURAJ KALA BAI W/O JAGDISH CHANDRA
SHARMA OCCUPATION: NA, R/O: 46-A ROYAL
TOWN, KHEDLI FATHAK, BHEEMGANJ MANDI
KOTA, DIST. KOTA (RAJASTHAN)
.....APPLICANTS
(MR. AMAN MOURYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
SUSNER, DISTRICT AGAR MALWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. KANIRAM SINGH PAWAR S/O ANAR SINGH
PAWAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ADVOCATE, R/O: SUSNER, DIST. AGAR MALWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. ANIRUDH SAXENA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 AND MS.
NISHA TANWAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1/STAET)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The applicants have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as, 'the Code') for quashment
of FIR dated 06.06.2022 registered vide Crime No.191/2022 at Police Station
Susner, District Agar Malwa for the offence under Sections 420, 120-B, 467,
506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as, 'IPC') and all
subsequent proceedings thereto on the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet.
2. As per the prosecution story, applicant No.1 Jagdish Chandra Sharma
executed an agreement for sale of disputed land situated at Susner in favour of
complainant Kaniram Parmar and obtained a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-. Applicant
No.2 Suraj, who is the real son of applicant No.1 also signed the agreement as a
witness. Later on registered agreement has been executed and in the agreement,
sale amount has also been mentioned. In the registered agreement to sale,
amount was shown as Rs.45,00,000/- and in the earlier agreement it was shown
as an amount of Rs.2,01,00,000/-. On 04.04.2022, both the applicants
transferred the disputed land to other persons and they have denied to return the
amount of Rs.9,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, complainant lodged an
FIR at P.S. Susner, District Agar Malwa.
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the
trial Court and trial is pending before the concerned trial Court.
4. Subsequently, on the basis of amicable settlement arrived at between
the applicants / accused persons and the complainant / respondent No.2, a joint
compromise petition under Section 320(2) of the Code was filed before this
Court and the factum of compromise has been duly verified by the Principal
Registrar of this Court on 16.02.2024.
5. It is submitted by the applicants submits that the matter has been
amicably settled between both the parties and they have arrived at peaceful
settlement and have also filed a joint compromise petition, which has been duly
verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court. Therefore, the continuance of
proceedings 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 applicants / accused persons are acquitted
from the offences.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused
the record.
8. This Court vide order dated 16.01.2024 had directed both the parties
to appear personally before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 24.01.2024
for verification of factum of compromise, but due to non-appearance of the
parties and their counsel, this Court again vide order dated 30.01.2024 had
directed both the parties to appear personally before the Principal Registrar of
this Court on 16.02.2024 for verification of factum of compromise. Then 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
467 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence.
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 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.
11. 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. Further, the ingredients are mainly under Section 420, 120-B, 467 and
506/34 of the IPC.
12. 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 Court below.
13. Resultantly, this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code is
hereb y a llo we d a n d the FIR dated 06.06.2022 registered vide Crime
No.191/2022 at Police Station Susner, District Agar Malwa for the offence
under Sections 420, 120-B, 467 and 506/34 of the IPC and all subsequent
proceedings thereto on the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet also stand
quashed against the applicants.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for necessary
compliance. No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Anushree
