Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 May, 2024
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
th
ON THE 15 OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11356 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DINESH S/O MEMBER SINGH MALHAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST TEJAJI CHOWK PALDA, INDORE,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THROUGH POLICE STATION BHANWARKUWA, INDORE, DISTRICT
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. NANDINI KHILLARI S/O ARVIND KHILARI, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: STUDENT 539 PALDA NAKA BAJRANG MANDIR
BHANWARKUA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY MS. HARSHLATA SONI, PANEL LAWYER APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
ADVOCATE GENERAL.
SHRI VIBHASH KHEDEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT [COMP]).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1] This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered at Crime
No.1306/2023 dated 12.12.2023, at Police Station Bhanwarkuwa,
District- Indore (M.P.), for offence under Sections 307, 452, 294 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as also all other subsequent
proceedings pending in the trial court.
2] In brief, the facts of the case are that on 12.12.2023 at around
11:00 P.M., when the complainant/respondent No.2-Nandini Khillari
was at home and went to open the door as her father-Arvind Khillari
@ Sonu was coming, but when her father alighted from the car in
front of the house, at that time another car bearing registration No.
MP-09-ZL-8888 came, and from which, Dinesh Malhar- the present
petitioner and the other co-accused persons viz; Manoj Malhar,
Umesh Malhar, Satish Shinde and Ankit Namdeo got down and
started assaulting her father. and Manoj Malhar and Umesh Malhar
caught hold of her father from behind, whereas Dinesh Malhar started
assaulting her father with a knife and after hearing the cries of her
father, her grandmother -Urmila Holkar and aunt-Shivani Khillari
also came to save her father but the accused persons Satish Shinde
and Ankit Namdeo also assaulted Urmila Holkar with a knife on her
left hand which also started bleeding. Thereafter, her father was
taken to Vishesh Jupiter hospital for treatment. After the
investigation, the charge sheet has already been filed and the Sessions
Trial has begun.
3] Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that both the parties are from the same vicinity, and have
already compromised the matter, and have also stated on oath that the
FIR was lodged on some confusion as it was dark in the night when
the incident took place and names of the accused persons have been
wrongly mentioned in the FIR. Counsel has also submitted that no
purpose would be served to drag the matter in the trial court when the
parties have already compromised the matter out of the court, as no
ill will remains between them. It is further submitted that the dispute
was in respect of the election only, and thus, it cannot be said that the
aforesaid offence affects the public at large.
4] Shri Vibhash Khedekar, counsel for the Objector has submitted
that he has no objection if the petition is allowed as the parties have
amicably settled the dispute.
5] Ms. Harshlata Soni, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the
petitioner is a known offender having registered as many as seven
criminal antecedents, including one case under Section 302 of the
Cr.P.C. Thus, no case for interference is made out.
6] In rebuttal, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has already been acquitted from all the cases, including the
case under Section 302 of the IPC, which was registered against him
in the year 1996 and the copies of the judgments have also been
placed on record.
7] Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
record.
8] From the record, it is found that so far as the FIR is concerned,
the same has been lodged by the complainant-Nandini Khillari, the
daughter of the injured, wherein, she has named all the accused
persons in the FIR, and specific overt act is attributed to the present
petitioner, who assaulted the injured with a knife and thus, turning to
the MLC report, it is found that the injured Arvind Khillari has
suffered stab wound measuring 5x5 cm on his left lumbar region and
as per the Doctor, the injured was not in as a position to give his
statement.
9] In his statement, injured-Arvind Khillari has also stated that
accused persons viz; Manoj Malhar and Umesh Malhar caught hold
of him from behind, whereas the present petitioner- Dinesh Malhar
inflicted knife injuries on his abdomen, on his face and also on his
left ring finger and he also started bleeding. Whereas, complainant's
grandmother -Urmila Holkar has also suffered a stab injury on her
hand. The clothes of the injured have also been seized which are also
having blood stained, and in the query report, the Doctor has opined
that the injuries suffered by the injured are grievous in nature and if
not attended or treated in time, could have proved to be lethal, and his
blood pressure was also 92/68. It is found that in the charge sheet, the
documents relating to the treatment of the injured have also been
filed running into many pages.
10] Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offence appears
to be serious in nature, hence a person responsible for the commission
of the same cannot be allowed to compromise the same on the pretext
that it was a private dispute. This Court is also of the considered
opinion that if such offences, where the accused has assaulted the
victim with a knife in full public view, inflicting stab wounds, are
allowed to be quashed in the High Court itself on the basis of a
compromise, it would send a wrong signal to the society, coupled
with the fact that the petitioner has a criminal past, and despite the
fact that he has been acquitted from almost all the cases, including the
one u/s.302 of IPC, this Court does not find it to be a fit case where
the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised to
discharge the petitioner at this stage only.
11] Accordingly the petition being devoid of merits is hereby
dismissed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
moni
