Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naresh Jatav @ Kalu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 15th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14370 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. NARESH JATAV @ KALU S/O SHRI MOHAN
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O CANTOMENT
SCHOOL KE PEECHE, SAHU KA PURA,
NIBUAPURA MURAR DISTRICT GWALIOR
M.P (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHRI MOHAN SINGH VERMA S/O LATE SHRI
KULARAM, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR CONTOMENT
SCHOOL KE PICHHE, SAHU KA PURA,
NIBUAPURA, MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SMT. BALO BAI W/O SHRI MOHAN SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSE WIFE CONTOMENT SCHOOL KE
PICHHE, SAHU KA PURA, NIBUAPURA,
MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHRI RAJESH JATAV S/O SHRI MOHAN
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR CONTOMENT
SCHOOL KE PICHHE, SAHU KA PURA,
NIBUAPURA, MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SMT. SAGUN JATAV W/O SHRI RAJESH
JATAV, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE CONTOMENT
SCHOOL KE PICHHE, SAHU KA PURA,
NIBUAPURA, MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2
6 SEEMA JATAV D/O SHRI MOHAN
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
. OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
CONTOMENT SCHOOL KE PICHHE,
SAHU KA PURA, NIBUAPURA, MORAR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(SHRI KAMLESH KUMAR KORI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER .
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
1. INCHARGE POLICE STATION
THROUGH POLICE STATION MURAR
DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. SANGEETA JATAV W/O SHRI
NARESH JATAV D/O SHRI
HARNARAYAN JATAV, AGED ABOUT 27
YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE
SAHU ARA MASHIN KE PASS, BHANDER
ROAD, INDARGARH DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
SHRI RAJEEV UPADHYAY - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
SHRI BHANU PRATAP SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT [R-2].
This application coming on for admission this day, the
court passed the following:
ORDER
1. Present petition has been preferred by the
petitioners/accused persons for quashment of subsequent criminal
proceedings in RCT No. 1716/2019 pending in the court of
Judicial Magistrate I Class, District Gwalior arising out of Crime
No.812/2018 registered at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior
for the offences u/S, 498-A,323, 294 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Present petition is filed only on the ground that petitioners
have settled the dispute with respondent no.2/complainant upon
whose instance the case was registered against petitioners. A joint
application is filed by petitioners and respondent no.2/complainant
bringing the fact of compromise on record. This Court vide order
dated 01.05.2024 directed the parties to appear before Principal
Registrar for the purpose of verification of compromise. Principal
Registrar after verification of compromise submitted his report
wherein Principal Registrar submitted that after recording of
statement of accused and complainant it appears that parties have
settled the dispute voluntarily, without any threat, inducement or
coercion.
3. Respondent no.2/complainant lodged the report in respect of
matrimonial dispute and during the pendency of the investigation
has settled the dispute with the petitioner.
4. These Sections are not compoundable. However, the Apex
Court in the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab &
Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that in appropriate case
High Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashment of FIR and further
criminal proceedings on the ground of compromise, if any public
interest is not involved and offence is not heinous. Relevant
paragraph 61 of the judgment is reproduced hereinunder :-
"61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: 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. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may
be exercised where the offender and victim have
settled their dispute would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no category
can be prescribed. However, 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 serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim
and offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like Prevention of Corruption
Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity etc;
cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences.
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on
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. In this category of cases, High Court
may quash criminal proceedings if in its view,
because of the compromise between the
offender and victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of criminal case would put accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal case despite full and complete
settlement and compromise with the victim. In
other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the
interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of
process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and wrongdoer
and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that criminal case is put to an end
and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within
its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding."
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant has
accepted the factum of compromise before this Court.
6. Considering the verification report and the fact that parties
have entered into compromise, the present petition is allowed. FIR
registered as Crime No.812/2018 at Police Station Morar, District
Gwalior and the subsequent criminal proceedings pending before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior as RCT No.1716/2019
against petitioners are hereby quashed.
7. Copy of this order be forwarded to the trial Court.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Van
VANDANA VERMA
2024.05.16 09:56:14 +05'30'
