Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Sharma @ Raju Maharaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 16 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13859 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
RAJESH SHARMA @ RAJU MAHARAJ S/O SHRI
OMPRAKASH SHARMA, AGED 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
KHETI, VILLGE KEVLARI DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ARJUN SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION BHANDER DISTRICT DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SEETASHARAN @ SEETARAM AHIRWAR S/O SHRI
KAMTAPRASAD AHIRWAR, AGED 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION : MAZDURI, GRAM NOBAI
BHANDER, DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ALOK SHARMA - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1/STATE)
(BY SHRI RAJEEV SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
This petition coming on for admisison this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
B y invoking inherent power of this Court, present petition has been
preferred by petitioner u/S.482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR bearing
Crime No.54/2024 registered at Police Station Bhander, District Datia (M.P.) for
the offences under Sections 323, 294, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (da)
(dha), 3 (2) (ikap&d) of SCST Act and other subsequent criminal proceedings
initiated therefrom on the basis of compromise.
Alongwith the petition, both the parties have filed I.A. No. 6819/2024 and
I.A.No.6820/2024 stating therein that the dispute between the parties has been
resolved and they have entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the
matter further.
In compliance of order dated 23.04.2024 passed by this Court, the
factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this
Court, who has recorded the statements of complainant/ respondent No.2 as
well as petitioner/accused and has submitted the report that the parties have
arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.
In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the
judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramawater Vs.
Satate of Madhya Pradesh, dated 25.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
1393 of 2011.
In the cases of Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana &
another (AIR 2008 SC 1968), Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab
(AIR 2008 SC 1969), Shiji Vs. Radhika & Another (2011) 10 SCC 705,
and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466,
Supreme Court has laid down that even in non-compoundable cases on the
basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable
time of the Court can be saved and utilised in other material cases.
In view of the above facts and circumstances and taking into account the
law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in the opinion of this court, continuance
of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise which will serve no
purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked
to prevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful exercise by the courts
below.
Considering the fact that the complainant/respondent No.2 and
petitioner/accused have amicably resolved the issue, this Court allows this
MCRC with the following direction:-
1. FIR bearing Crime No.54/2024 registered at Police Station Bhander,
District Datia (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 323, 294, 506 of IPC and
Sections 3 (1) (da) (dha), 3 (2) (ikap&d) of SCST Act against the petitioner is
hereby quashed.
2. All the consequential proceedings flowing out of the said FIR also
stand quashed.
It is made clear that the instant FIR is being quashed only keeping
in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and this order
cannot be taken as a precedent on the power of High Court to exercise
its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR on the
ground that the complainant and the accused persons have entered into a
compromise.
The petition stands disposed of.
No order as to cost
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
AK/-
