Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chanda@Chandani Dohare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2024

Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

                                              1
       IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT G WA L I O R
                      BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
                          ON THE 6th OF MARCH, 2024
                  MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2771 of 2024

BETWEEN:-
CHANDA@CHANDANI DOHARE S/O LATE SHRI
RAMSINGH DOHARE, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
NEW JAGRATI NAGAR LAXMIGANJ LASHKAR
GWALIOR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                          .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI HARISH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

AND
 1.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
 INCHARGE POLICE STATION, THROUGH :
 POLICE STATION JANAKGANJ DISTRICT
 GWALIOR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
 2.  SWETA BANSAL W/O SHRI AMIT BANSAL,
 AGED ABOUT      33 YEARS,   RAMDWARA
 LAXMIGANJ, LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
 PRADESH)
                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. PRACHI SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL
FOR THE COMPLAINANT);
(SHRI PURUSHOTTAM TANWAR, LEARNED PL FOR
THE RESPONDENT/STATE).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This application coming on for HEARING this day, the court passed the

following:

                                          ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of CrPC for

quashment of criminal proceedings in relation to offences punishable under

Sections 326A, 506, 450 and 201 of IPC in Crime No.249/2023 registered at

Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior.

As per the case of prosecution, on 18.05.2023 around 9.51 in the

night, Shweta Bansal W/o Amit Bansal Aged 32 years admitted at

Sarvodaya Hospital, reported to Sub Inspector of P.S. Janakganj that around

3 in the afternoon, Chandni alias Chanda Dohare came to her house.

Chandni started threatening to consume "Allout" liquid. Chandni took out

an acid bottle from her purse and poured it on Shweta. Shweta suffered

multiple burn injuries on different part of her body. Her husband Amit

intervened and rescued her. Shweta was admitted at Sarvodaya Hospital,

Gwalior for treatment. On such allegations, FIR at Crime No.249 of 2023

was registered at PS Janakganj for offences punishable under Sections 326-

A and 506 of IPC. The doctor found acid burn injuries on her chest, neck,

abdomen, hands, thighs and foot. She was further referred for treatment to

Sir Gangaram City Hospital, New Delhi, where she underwent plastic

surgery. Statements of Shweta and other witness were recorded and relevant

seizure were made. The prosecution for offence punishable Us 450 and 201

of IPC was added. The investigation is underway.

During pendency of this petition, application under Sections 320 (2)

of the Cr.P.C has been filed for granting permission to compound the

offence which was registered as IA No.1221/2024 U/s 320 (2) of Cr.P.C

along with affidavits of Sister of petitioner Jyoti Johari and of respondent

No.2/complainant Shweta Bansal, stating therein that they have resolved the

dispute amicably and now they do not want to pursue the matter any more.

This Court vide order dated 24.01.2024, had directed the parties to

appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for recording their

statements and for verification of factum of compromise. The Principal

Registrar has submitted his report on 08.02.2024 and verified the factum of

compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment passed by the High Courts in the cases of Mukesh Vs. State of

Delhi 2015 SCC OnLine Delhi 10737, Sandeep Vs. State (Govt. of NCT

of Delhi) 2015 SCC OnLine Del. 13410, Mustafa Vs. State of

Uttarakhand and Another 2017 SCC OnLine Uttarakhand 472 and

Nazimuddin Vs. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Gujarat. 2447, in

support of his contentions.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, it was

held that-

"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.

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 a serious impact on society." (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6

SCC 466 laid down following guiding principles for exercise of inherent

powers-

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:

29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:(i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power, the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve 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. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great

oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role.

Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial

court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime. (emphasis added) In the backdrop of aforesaid proposition of law, the contentions of both the parties are considered.

As per the prosecution and evidence available on record, it is a

deliberate case of acid attack by the petitioner over complainant Shweta in

her (complainant's) house. The complainant had suffered multiple burn

injuries on various parts of her body. She remained hospitalized for

treatment at Sarvodaya Hospital, Gwalior and Sir Gangaram Hospital, New

Delhi. She had to undergo skin grafting. There was no act of provocation on

the part of the complainant. The pouring of acid over trivial issue shows

mental depravity of petitioner/accused. The offence is heinous and has

ramification on public order. In view of the overwhelming material on

record, it cannot be said that possibility of conviction is remote or bleak and

continuation of proceeding would cause injustice. In such a scenario,

scuttling or stifling criminal prosecution at early stage of trial, would itself