Bhola vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 12800 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bhola vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2024

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

                                                            1
                                IN    THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT INDORE
                                                      BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
                                                  ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17396 of 2024

                           BETWEEN:-
                           BHOLA S/O SHRI PREMSINGH MANDLOI, AGED ABOUT
                           32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE 226/1 GAYATRI
                           MANDIR, KANADIA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPLICANT
                           (BY SHRI VISHAL BAHETI - ADVOCATE)

                           AND
                           1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                 HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
                                 KANADIA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.    SHANKARLAL S/O SHRI SUKHRAM PARMAR
                                 OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE KANADIA INDORE
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           3.    JASWANT    S/O   SHANKARLAL    PARMAR
                                 OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE KANADIA INDORE
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                           (SHRI KAPIL MAHANT - PL FOR STATE AND SHRI BABLU PATEL,
                           LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3)

                                 This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed
                           the following:
                                                             ORDER

The present petition is u/S.482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR No.284 dated 30.6.2016 registered by respondent No.1 u/Ss.147, 148, 149, 506, 324 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(10) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1981.

2. The parties have filed application for compromise as IA

No.6801/2024 u/S.320 Cr.P.C. By order dated 29.4.2024 this court directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of compromise. A verification report has been submitted stating that the applicant and complainants respondents No.2 have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion. They have amicably resolved their dispute.

3. Counsel for State submits that except offence u/S.506 of IPC all the offences are non compoundable.

4. The parties submit that in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of MP reported in 2021

SCC OnLine SC 96, the parties may be permitted to compromise the complaint. They have relied on para-16 of the order which reads as under:-

16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the compromise between the parties and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar (supra), the parties are permitted to compromise the case. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The FIR in question is quashed so far it relates to applicant Bhola. He is acquitted of the

charges in view of the compromise.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE VM