Madhya Pradesh High Court
Veerendra Yadav Alias Liddu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42580 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. VEERENDRA YADAV ALIAS LIDDU S/O VISHRAM
SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILL. PURAINA P.S.
SIMARIYA AND DISTT. PANNA M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RAMPAL YADAV @ BALLU S/O BHAGATRAM
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
LABOUR R/O VILLAGE PURAINA POLICE SATION
SIMARIYA AND DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI K.N. BUNDELA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S. SIMARIYA
DISTT. PANNA M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SHRADDHA TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
By the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the petitioners are seeking quashing of offence registered against
them vide FIR No.107/2022 at Police Station Simariya, District Panna, under
Sections 307, 294 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners and also of complainant have filed an
application jointly along with the affidavits of the parties mentioning therein that
entering into compromise, the parties have settled their dispute ex curia.
However, they have also submitted that the statement of parties has also been
recorded before the Registrar wherein they have admitted the fact that they have
entered into a compromise.
3. However, learned Panel Lawyer has raised an objection saying that the
offence registered against the petitioners since not included in the list under
Section 320 of the CrPC, therefore, it is not compoundable.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
5. The Supreme Court in a case reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 [Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.] after considering the the provisions of
section 320 and 482 of the CrPC has held that the compounding can he
permitted in a non-compoundable offence. Relevant part of the order of the
order reads as under :-
'Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground
of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same
thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not
interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding
of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially
different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High
Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of
offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the
provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided
solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the
formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal
offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided
by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice
would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate
consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.
B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do
illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does
not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section
482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in
B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji this Court
has compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly?
We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between
compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of
a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power
under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different
although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz.
acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment.'
6. In a subsequent order, passed on 27.03.2014 in Criminal Appeal
No.686/2014 [Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.] after
relying on the judgment passed in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the Supreme
Court has permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable case and
quashed the criminal proceedings.
7. In the case arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1132-1155 of 2022 [Daxaben
vs. State of Gujarat], the Supreme Court has held that the inherent power of
the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wide and can even be
exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable
offences, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of
Court. Where the victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially
civil and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings.
8. Similarly, in a case reported in AIR 2015 SC (Criminal) 166 [Yogendra
Yadav & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.] , the Supreme Court has
held as under:-
'Needless to say that offences which are non-compoundable
cannot be compound by the Court. Courts draw the power of
compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said
provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh V. State of
Punjab). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a
criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482
of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have
amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection,
even though the offences are non-compoundable. In which
cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the
proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each
case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences
like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the
proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the
society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two
individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may
sent wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court
is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature
and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and
where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of
compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends
of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases,
the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a
lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will
also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of
peace.'
9. In Yogendra Yadav's case (supra), charges were under Sections 307
& 326 IPC. The Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court could
have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC because parties have
amicably settled the dispute and the case did not pertain to an offence of moral
turpitude or grave offences like rape, murder etc.
10. Likewise, in Criminal Appeal No. 1489/2012 decided on 29.09.2021
parties being Ramgopla & Anr. Vs. State of MP , the Supreme Court in
paragraph-12 has held as under:-
''12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of
the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their
dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the
nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such
proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non compoundable. The
High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of
the offence beyond the body of an individual and therefore,
adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if
goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very
object of the administration of criminal justice system.''
11. In a case reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 [State of M.P. vs. Laxmi
Narayan], a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has discussed the earlier
judgments of the Supreme Court and laid down the principles in paragraph-15.
The relevant paragraphs-15.1 & 15.2 are as under:-
'15.1 That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to
quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences
under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have
resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions
which involved 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;'
12. In SLP (Crl.) No.7072 of 2021 [Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab &
Anr.], decided on 20.10.2021, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph-61 that
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on
a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising
from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or
the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature
and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the proceedings can be
quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in non-
compoundable cases on the basis of compounding.
13. Considering the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration the settlement
between the accused persons and the complainant that they have amicably
settled their dispute and are leading peaceful life, I am of the opinion that no
purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings.
14. In view of the above, the petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC is
allowed. Resultantly, the offence registered against the petitioners vide FIR
No.107/2022 at Police Station Simariya, District Panna and subsequent charge-
sheet and consequential criminal proceedings arising out of the said FIR are
hereby quashed.
15. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioners stands allowed and
disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
dm
