Madhya Pradesh High Court
Megha Grover vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2024
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29056
1 MCRC-35595-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 4 th OF OCTOBER, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35595 of 2024
MEGHA GROVER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Govind Singh Rajput - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Amit Bhatia - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Ms. Mayuri Jain - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of Cr.P.C
for quashment of FIR No.379/2023 (and subsequent charge-sheet) registered
at P.S - Kanadiya, Indore for offence under Sections 498(A), 323, 294, 506,
34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act mainly on the ground
of compromise.
2) It is argued that earlier the husband and in-laws of the complainant
filed M.Cr.C No.22449/2024 for quashment of FIR and the charge-sheet. On
verification of the compromise reached between the parties in the said
petition, the same was allowed and the FIR and charge-sheet have been
quashed and they have been acquitted.
3) Counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant submits that she has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29056
2 MCRC-35595-2024
no objection to the prayer for quashment of FIR and charge-sheet.
4) Counsel for the State submits that the offence under Section 323,
506 of IPC is compoundable, but the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is
non-compoundable as per the table provided in Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
5) In view of the above, it would be apposite to survey the law in
respect of compounding in non-compoundable case. 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 can be 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29056
3 MCRC-35595-2024
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."
6) 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.
7) In the case of Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat (Arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No.1132-1155 of 2022) , the Apex Court held that the inherent power
of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wide and can even be
exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable
offences, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of
Court. Where the victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially
civil and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings.
8) In the case of Yogendra Yadav & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Anr. AIR 2015 SC (Criminal) 166, the Apex Court held as under:-
"Needless to say that offences which are non-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29056
4 MCRC-35595-2024
compoundable cannot be compound by the Court.
Courts draw the power of compounding offences from
Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be
strictly followed (Gian Singh V. State of Punjab) .
However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a
criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under
Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that
the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the
victim has no objection, even though the offences are
non-compoundable. In which cases the High Court can
exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will
depend on facts and circumstances of each case.
Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences
like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the
proceedings because that will have harmful effect on
the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted
to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are
quashed, it may sent wrong signal to the society.
However, when the High Court is convinced that the
offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore,
do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it
feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of
compromise would bring about peace and would secure
ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In
such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame
prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be
waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the
compromise and obstruct restoration of peace."
9) In Yogendra Yadav's case (supra), charges were under Sections 307
& 326 IPC. The apex Court was of the view that the High Court could have
exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. because parties have
amicably settled the dispute and the case did not pertain to an offence of
moral turpitude or grave offences like rape, murder etc.
10) In the case of Ramgopla & Anr. vs. State of MP (Criminal Appeal
No.1489/2012, decided on September 29, 2021), the Apex Court held in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29056
5 MCRC-35595-2024
para12 as under:-
''12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the
nature of the offence and the fact that parties have
amicably settled their dispute and the victim has
willingly consented to the nullification of criminal
proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of
its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if
the offences are non compoundable. The High Court
can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the
offence beyond the body of an individual and therefore,
adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony,
even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or
paralyze the very object of the administration of
criminal justice system.''
11) In the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688 ,
a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court discussed the earlier judgments of
the Apex Court and laid down the principles in para-15. The relevant para-
15.1 & 15.2 are reproduced as under:-
''15.1 That the power conferred under Section
482 of the Code to quash the criminal
proceedings for the non-compoundable
offences under Section 320 of the Code can
be exercised having overwhelmingly and
predominantly the civil character, particularly
those arising out of commercial transactions
or arising out of matrimonial relationship or
family disputes and when the parties have
resolved the entire dispute amongst
themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in
those prosecutions which involved 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;''
12) In the case of Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., Criminal
Appeal No.1233 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7072 of 2021
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29056
6 MCRC-35595-2024
decided on 20.10.2021), the Apex Court held in para 61 that criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a
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, the proceedings can
be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in
non-compoundable cases on the basis of compounding.
13). The parties submit that in the light of the judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of MP reported in 2021
SCC OnLine SC 96, the parties may be permitted to compromise the
complaint. They have relied on para-16 of the order which reads as under:-
16. On the other hand, where it appears to the
Court that the offence in question although
covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private
or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has
not been committed on account of the caste of the
victim, or where the continuation of the legal
proceedings would be an abuse of the process of
law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the
proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a
prayer for quashing on the basis of a
compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied
that the underlying objective of the Act would not
be contravened or diminished even if the felony in
question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the
offence is covered under a 'special statute' would
not refrain this Court or the High Court, from
exercising their respective powers under Article
142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C.
14). After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-IND:29056
7 MCRC-35595-2024
consideration the compromise between the parties and the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar (supra) and
also the fact that the same complainant has already compromised
the matter with the husband and in-laws and the present applicant
is sister-in-law of the applicant. Therefore, further criminal
proceedings in FIR No.379/2023(and the subsequent charge-sheet)
registered at P.S - Kanadiya, Indore for offence under Sections
498(A), 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act is quashed so far it relates to the present applicant.
15). With the aforesaid, present petition is allowed and disposed
off.
CC as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
PK
