Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajkumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 May, 2024
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 31ST OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16870 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJKUMAR S/O SHRI MATADEEN, AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O PUTO SINGH KA
PURA KESHAR KHERIYA BARETHA
BAHADURPUR DISTRICT GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JAGMOHAN S/O SHRI RAMDEEN, AGED
ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O KACHHPURA
BARETHA DISTRICT GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. BHAWANI PRASAD GOUD S/O SHRI
RAMDEEN GOUD, AGED ABOUT 53
YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
R/O AARAMIL BIRLA NAGAR DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KAMLESH SINGH S/O SHRI RAMDEEN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTUTE R/O BARETHA KA PURA
BAHADURPUR DISTRICT GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. DHRUV SINGH S/O SHRI RAMDEEN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O MAJRA
KHACHPURA MURAR BARETHA
DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. GANESHRAM S/O SHRI RAMDEEN, AGED
2
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE R/O BARETHA DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
( SHRI ANKUR MAHESHWARI- ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONERS)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH POLICE STATION
1.
MAHARAJPURA DISTRICT GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANTO W/O SHRI DAMODAR, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O GRAM BARETHA
BAHADURPUR DISTRICT GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PPS VAJEETA- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1- STATE AND SHRI ABDHESH SINGH
TOMAR- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2-
COMPLAINANT)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 21-05-2024
Pronounced on : 31-05-2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for order, coming
on for pronouncement this day, Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar
pronounced the following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by
petitioners seeking quashment of FIR pertaining to Crime No.896 of
2023 registered by PS Maharajpura, District Gwalior for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 336 of IPC with all
consequential proceedings thereto.
(2) As per the case of prosecution, Manto Bai admitted in Trauma
Centre of JA Hospital, Gwalior, reported that on 21-10-2023 around
10:00 in the morning, Jagmohan, Bhawani, Kamlesh and others have
dismantled the Panchayat Bhawan near her house. Her family
members objected to destruction of Panchayat Bhawan. One of
accused (Dhruve) fired on her (Manto Bai) with country-made gun
(katta). She sustained injury on her right hand. Her husband Damodar
and daughter Seema came for rescue. Jagmohan, Bhawani, Ganesh,
Kamlesh, Rajkumar and Dhruve started pelting stones. Damodar and
Seema also sustained injuries. They were taken to JA Hospital,
Gwalior for treatment. On such allegations, PS Maharajpura, District
Gwalior registered FIR at Crime No.896 of 2023 against Jagmohan,
Bhawani, Ganesh, Kamlesh, Rajkumar and Dhruve (petitioners) for
the offences punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 336 of
IPC. Injured were forwarded for medico-legal examination. One
gunshot injury was found on right upper-arm of Manto Bai. Accused
Kamlesh, Jagmohan, Rajkumar, Ganesh, Bhavani and Dhruve were
arrested. One country-made gun (katta) was recovered and seized at
the instance of Dhruv. Relevant seizures were made. Statements of
witnesses were recorded. The investigation is underway.
(3) During pendency of this petition, applications (IA No.8240 of
2024 and IA No. 8241 of 2024) under Sections 320(1) and 320(2) of
CrPC were filed for granting permission to compound offence along-
with affidavits of petitioners and respondent No.2/complainant
stating therein that they have resolved the dispute amicably and they
do not wish to pursue the matter anymore.
(4) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that both the parties
have amicably settled the dispute, therefore, FIR at Crime No.896 of
2023 along-with all subsequent proceedings deserves to be quashed.
Learned Counsel relaying on judgment of Supreme Court in case of
Dharmendra Singh and Others vs. State of MP and Another,
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 216 of 2024 decided on 16 th of
April, 2024 and judgments of coordinate Bench of this Court in
cases of Umesh Singh Rajawat vs. The State of MP and Others,
MCRC No.3483 of 2024 decided on 20th of March, 2024 and
Ramavtar Prajapati vs. The State of MP and Another, MCRC
No.1822 of 2024 decided on 6th of February, 2024, contends 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 utilized in other material cases.
(5) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
No.2/complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise
between the parties.
(6) This Court vide order dated 29-04-2024 had directed the
parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for
recording of their statements and for verification of factum of
compromise. The Principal Registrar has submitted his report on 03-
05-2024 and verified the factum of compromise.
(7) Heard both the parties on IA No.8240 of 2024 and IA No.
8241 of 2024 and main petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC and
perused the record.
(8) The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 after an elaborate
consideration of the matter and after referring to its various earlier
decisions, has observed in para 108 as under:-
''108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of
decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above,
we give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to
lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and
to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the
F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2)of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6)Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously Instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.''
(9) The Supreme Court in case of Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 laid down following guiding principles
for exercise of inherent powers-
"29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
sum up and lay down the following principles by
which the High Court would be guided in giving
adequate treatment to the settlement between the
parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of
the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing
the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement
with direction to continue with the criminal
proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the
Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies
in the Court to compound the offences under Section
320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the
criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not
compoundable, where the parties have settled the
matter between themselves. However, this power is to
be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the
settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the
criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in
such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to
form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two
objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in
those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious
offences of mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in
nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly,
for the offences alleged to have been committed under
special statute like the Prevention ofCorruption Act or
the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely
on the basis of compromise between the victim and the
offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil
character, particularly those arising out of commercial
transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship
or family disputes should be quashed when the parties
have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High
Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of
criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would
be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would
fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and
therefore are to be generally treated as crime against
the society and not against the individual alone.
However, the High Court would not rest its decision
merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC
in the FIR or the charge is framed under this
provision. It would be open to the High Court to
examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307
IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has
collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would
lead to proving the charge under Section 307 IPC. For
this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go
by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury
is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect
of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the
guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie
analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether
there is a strong possibility of conviction or the
chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the
former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and
quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter
case it would be permissible for the High Court to
accept the plea compounding the offence based on
complete settlement between the parties. At this stage,
the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the
settlement between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may improve their
future relationship.
29.7.While deciding whether to exercise its
power under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings
of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where
the settlement is arrived at immediately after the
alleged commission of offence and the matter is still
under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in
accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason
that at this stage the investigation is still on and even
the charge-sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those
cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is
yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the
High Court can show benevolence in exercising its
powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of
the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the
other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost
complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the
matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High
Court should refrain from exercising its power under
Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial
court would be in a position to decide the case finally
on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether
the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or
not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is
already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at
the appellate stage before the High Court, mere
compromise between the parties would not be a
ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the
offender who has already been convicted by the trial
court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC
and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime
and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict
found guilty of such a crime".
(10) In light of aforementioned proposition of law, the fact situation
of present case is examined.
(11) As per the case of prosecution, gunshot was fired at public
place which caused injury to Manto Bai. The accused were
dismantling Panchayat Bhawan when the altercation started. Thus,
the incident has bearing on public order also. It is not a private
dispute between two parties inter se. Considering the allegations
contained in FIR supported by medical evidence, statements of
witnesses and recovery of firearm, it cannot be said that prosecution
is baseless and there is no possibility of conviction in the matter. At
this juncture, it cannot be said that the chances of conviction are
remote and bleak. The accused acted in cruel manner displaying
mental depravity. Continuation of criminal proceedings against
petitioners cannot be said to be abuse of process of Court. Rather, to
stifle or to scuttle the proceedings at initial stage, in aforementioned
circumstances, by invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of CrPC, would itself be an abuse of process of Court.
(12) Considering the aforementioned aspects of the matter, the
benefit of precedent relied upon by petitioners, cannot be extended
for the reason of material difference in the facts and circumstance of
present case.
(13) It is not a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR with all consequential
proceedings thereto in view of compromise between the petitioners
and respondent No.2. Accordingly, IA No.8240 of 2024 and IA No.
8241 of 2024 are rejected and as also, the petition filed under Section
482 of CrPC is dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Police Station
and Court concerned for information.
(SANJEEV S. KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
31/05/2024
MKB
MAHENDRA Digitally signed by MAHENDRA BARIK
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=8c6d4d6122d7ee987e457a3bec5922cacbc050c99898139
BARIK
7a35d9758a2b55074, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=AB90F893988F10D718DA01F8065D87F25DDC9B6C
8C3FF0E5E280DD36D476F6BA, cn=MAHENDRA BARIK
Date: 2024.06.02 05:58:13 +05'30'
