Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 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 21 st OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20295 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. SHAILENDRA S/O MANGILAL SOLANKI, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O
GOVERNMENT COMPLEX, BEHIND ACROPOLIS
COLLEGE, MANGLIYA, DIST. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. GOVIND RATHORE S/O KARAN SINGH RATHORE,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER
R/O BAJRANG NAGAR, TALAVALI CHANDA
INDORE DIST INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. LOKESH S/O OMPRAKASH JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O 96,
VILLAGE MANGLIYA, TEHSIL SANWER DIST.
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. AMAN JAISWAL S/O ASHOK JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O
432, VILLAGE MANGLIYA, DIST. INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI BHARAT YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
KSHIPRA DIST. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MOHIT VERMA S/O RAMVARAN VERMA, AGED
ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOTHING 108
BLOCK LASUDIYA MORI, DEWASNAKA, P.S.
LASUDIA, DIST INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. VISHVAPRATAP SINGH BHADORIYA S/O SHRI
RAMLAKHAN BHADORIYA, AGED ABOUT 27
YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR HOUSE NO. 467,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAMOD
KUSHWAHA
Signing time: 21-05-2024
16:50:39
2
PANCHWATI COLONY, TALAWALI CHANDA, A.B.
ROAD, TALAWALI CHANDA, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. MUKESH S/O BHAGWAN SINGH GOYAL, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR 5,
LASUDIYA MORI, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AJAY RAJ GUPTA - P.L FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE.
SHRI VINAY JOSHI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2-4)
This application coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present application is filed u/S.482 of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR
No.113 dated 10/3/2024 registered by respondent No.1 u/S 307, 294, 323,
506/34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1981.
2. By order dated 16/5/2024 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 respondents
Nos.2-4 have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement
and coercion. They have amicably resolved their dispute.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent/state submits that the offence
under Section 294, 323, 506 of IPC are compoundable but offence under
section 307 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1981 are non-compoundable, therefore, the offence cannot
be compounded under section 320 of the Cr.P.C.
4. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the the provisions of
section 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C held that the compounding was permitted in
a non-compoundable offence. Relevant part of the order of the order reads as
under :-
"Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground
of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same
thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not
interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding
of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially
different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the
High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In
compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is
circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and
the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the
other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for
quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal
complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether
the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power
although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or
dismissal of indictment. B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj
Sharma and Shiji do illustrate the principle that the High Court
may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code
and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the
High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by
quashing criminal proceedings in B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant,
Manoj Sharma and Shiji this Court has compounded the non-
compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so.
There does exist the distinction between compounding of an
offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by
the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section
482. The two powers are distinct and different although the
ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal of the
accused or dismissal of indictment."
5. In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs.
State of Punjab And Anr passed in Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 dated
27.03.2014 after relying on the judgment passed in the case of Gian Singh
(supra), the Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable
case and quashed the criminal proceedings.
6. Counsel for the applicants cited the order dated 10.03.2022 passed in
M.Cr.C No.59974/2021 (Manoj Kumar Vs. State of MP). By the order
dated 10/3/2022, the Court quashed FIR for commission of offence under
Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and SC/ST Act on the basis of compromise. He also
placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court passed in Criminal
Appeal No.394-395/2021 (Ananda DV Vs. State and Another) dated
12.04.2021, wherein in similar circumstances, the order of the High Court
rejecting the petition for quashment of FIR was set aside and the FIR was
quashed.
7. In the light of the judgment and considering the facts of the case and
compromise between the parties, I am of the view that the present application
deserves to be allowed.
8. Resultantly, present application stands allowed; and FIR registered
against the applicants vide Crime No.113/2024 dated 10/3/2024 at Police Station
Kshipra, District Indore (MP) for commission of offence u/S 307, 294, 323,
506/34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1981 as also the subsequent charge sheet are hereby quashed
and the action taken against the applicants pursuant thereto be treated as effaced
from record in law. They are acquitted of the charges in view of the
compromise.
9. With the aforesaid, present application stands disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
