Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aman Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16294 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
AMAN RAJPUT S/O DHARA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 21
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. VILLAGE-
DHABLA GHOSI, P. S. AWANTIPUR BADODIYA,
DISTRICT- SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAJESH YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION SHUJALPUR MANDI, DISTRICT
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICTIM X THROUGH P.S. SHUJALPUR MANDI
DISTRICT SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VISHAL SANOTHIYA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
(BY SHIR MOHAMMED IMRAN KHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. Heard on I.A.No.6901/2024 and I.A.No.6902/2024 which are
application for compounding the offence under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C.
2 . Parties were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar of this
Court for verification of compromise. A report has been received that the
matter has been compromised and the dispute has been amicably settled.
3. Counsel for the State submits that the offence under Section 366, 376,
376(2)(n), 506 of the IPC and under Section 3(ii)(v), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(ii)(va) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are non-compoundable.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court permitting quashment of the
FIR on the basis of compounding under Section 376(2)(n) and SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He cited the order dated 10/3/2022 passed in
M.Cr.C.No.59974/2021 (Manoj Kumar V/s. State of M.P. ). He also placed
reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal
No.394-395/2021 (Ananda DV Vs. State and Anr. ) dated 12/4/2021 wherein
in similar circumstances, the order of the High Court rejecting the petition for
quashment of FIR was set aside and the FIR was quashed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also
the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananda D.V. V/s.
State & Anr.(Supra).
6. This order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananda D.V.
V/s. State & Anr. (supra) reads as under :-
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated
14.11.2019 and 30.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition Criminal Nos. 2382 of 2019 and 287 of 2020
respectively, whereby the High Court rejected the criminal writ petitions
for quashing of FIR No. 455 of 2013 dated 17.09.2013 in respect of
offence registered at P.S. Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi and the
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR filed by the private
respondent was that the appellant had promised her that he will marry
her, which promise was not kept by the appellant. The FIR was
registered on 17.09.2013.
It is not in dispute that after the registration of FIR, the parties
were able to resolve their differences and eventually got married on
11.10.2014. The appellant as well as private respondent represented by
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel jointly state that they are
enjoying happy married life.
A joint request is, therefore, made on behalf of the appellant and
the private respondent that the FIR registered on 17.09.2013 be
quashed as it was the outcome of some misunderstanding between the
parties.
Considering the nature of allegations in the FIR and the
realization of the fact that due to miscommunication FIR came to be
registered at the relevant point of time which issues/misunderstanding
have now been fully resolved and the parties are happily married since
11.10.2014, the basis of FIR does not survive. Rather registering such
FIR was an ill-advised move on the part of the private respondent, is the
stand now taken before us. It is seen that the appellant and private
respondent are literate and well informed persons and have jointly
opted for quashing of the stated FIR.
Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in the interest of
justice, we accede to the joint request of quashing of FIR in the peculiar
facts of the present case.
Hence, these appeals must succeed. The impugned judgment and
order is set aside. Instead, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant for
quashing is allowed, as a result of which, all steps taken on the basis of
impugned FIR be treated as effaced from the record in law.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of."
7 . Testing the facts and circumstances of the case, on the anvil of the
aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court, this Court finds that the
petitioner has also made out a case for quashment of the FIR, as both the
parties have decided to bury their hatches and prosecutrix has also jointly filed
the applications that she has no objection if the FIR is quashed. Thus in such
circumstances, this Court finds it expedient to allow the present petition.
8. Resultantly, the present application stands allowed and FIR registered
against the petitioner vide Crime No.113/2024 dated 17/3/2024 at Police-Station
- Shujalpur Mandi, District Shajapur (MP) for commission of offence under
Sections under Section 366, 376, 376(2)(n), 506 of the IPC and under Section
3(ii)(v), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(ii)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as also all
the subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed and the action taken against the
petitioner pursuant thereto be treated as effaced from record in law.
C.c. as per rules.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
SS/-
