Madhya Pradesh High Court
Guchchi Khan@Asif Khan 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 15 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16614 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
GUCHCHI KHAN@ASIF KHAN S/O SHRI BABALU KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O
KRISHNAPURA WARD NO. 14 MAKAN NO. 60 TEHSIL
DABRA DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI PRASUM KUMAR MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION DABRA DISTRICT GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KAMLESH RAWAT S/O SHRI BABULAL RAWAT,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O GRAM SYAVRI DISTRICT
DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. POONAM SHUKLA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present petition is filed by petitioners/accused persons under Section 482
o f Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR registered as Crime No.137/2024 at Police
Station Dabra, District Gwalior under Sections 336, 323, 294, 506, 427, 147,
148 of IPC and subsequent criminal proceedings.
Present petition is filed only on the ground that petitioner has settled the
dispute with respondent no.2/complainant upon whose instance the case was
registered against petitioner. A joint application is filed by petitioner and
respondent no.2/complainant bringing the fact of compromise on record. This
Court vide order dated 02.05.2024 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. The factum of compromise was duly verified by the Principal
Registrar. Offences are not compoundable. Therefore, petition has been moved
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR and subsequent criminal
proceedings on the ground of compromise.
T he 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
c a n be summarised thus: the power o f the Hi gh Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given t o 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
b e 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 a r e no t private in nature and have
serious i mpac t o n society. Similarly, a n y 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 s u c h offences. B u t 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 i f in its view,
because of the compromise between the offender and victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation o f criminal case would put accused t o great
oppression a nd prejudice a nd 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 o r contrary to the interest of justice to continue
with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount t o 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."
Learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant has accepted the
factum of compromise before this Court.
Considering the verification report and fact that parties have entered into
compromise, the present petition is allowed. Crime Case No.137/2024 is hereby
quashed.
It is needless to mention that investigation shall continue against the other
accused persons.
Copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Police Station.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Rohit
