Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rinku Mourya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1328
1 MCRC-43501-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43501 of 2024
RINKU MOURYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
None for the applicant.
Shri S.S. Kushwaha- Public Prosecutor for the State.
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra and Shri Pramod Kumar Pachori- Advocate
for the intervenor.
ORDER
I.A.No.303/2025 has been filed seeking permission to intervene.
2. Since none appears for applicant to oppose the said application,
therefore, the same is allowed and Arjun Singh Jatav is permitted to intervene in
the matter.
3. Although, this application was filed for quashment of FIR in Crime
No.482/2023 registered at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior for offence
under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC but during pendency of this application,
I.A.No.23928/2023 has been filed under Section 359 of BNSS seeking quashment
of FIR on the basis of compromise.
4. It is submitted by counsel for interevenor that earlier also an application
for quashement of FIR was filed on the basis of compromise, which was
registered as MCRC.No.42955/2023. The applicant/intervener was allowed to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1328
2 MCRC-43501-2024
intervene in that matter. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a detailed order
dated 11/10/2023 passed in MCRC.No.42955/2023 had dismissed the application
for compromise and held that the consent of prosecutrix appears to be doubtful
and in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC
466, the compromise cannot be accepted. It is submitted that now
I.A.No.23928/2024 and I.A.No.23930/2024 have been filed for compounding
without disclosing the aforesaid fact.
5. By order dated 17/12/2024, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had
directed applicant -Rinku Maurya as well as prosecutrix to appear before the
Principal Registrar of this Court on 19/12/2024.
6. The Principal Registrar of this Court has submitted the following report:-
"In compliance of Hon'ble Court order dated 17.12.2024 the matter
is placed before me for verification of compromise.
Complainant/Respondent No.2 Prosecutrix 'X' is present alongwith
her Counsel Ms. Arti Anuragi Adv who has identified her.
Accused/Applicant Rinku Mourya is present alongwith his Counsel
Shri Rishi Rajak Adv who has identified him.
Parties have submitted copy of their Aadhar Card regarding their
identification.
Parties have filed I.A. No. 23928/2024 and I.A. 23930/2024 for
compromise alongwith their affidavits.
Statements of Complainant/Respondent No.2 Prosecutrix 'X' and
Accused/Applicant Rinku Mourya is recorded. Matter perused,
inquired and verified as to factum of compromise.
Having verified the factum of compromise from the
Complainant/Respondent No.2 Prosecutrix 'X', I am of the view that
she has arrived at compromise with Accused/Applicant Rinku Mourya
voluntarily, without any threat, inducement or coercion.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1328
3 MCRC-43501-2024
Report is submitted accordingly.
Therefore, case be listed as per order of the Hon'ble Court."
7. A similar report was also submitted in MCRC.No.42955/2023 and
consent and volunteriness of the prosecutrix was held to be doubtful. The Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order in MCRC
No.42955/2023:-
"Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482
of Cr.P.C for quashment of FIR and further criminal
proceedings in relation to offence punishable under
Sections 376 AND 506 of IPC in Crime No.482/2023
registered at PS Dabra Distt. Gwalior (MP).
As per the case of prosecution,
complainant/prosecutrix reported to PS Dabra Distt.
Gwalior on 08.06.2023 interalia alleging that Rinku
Maurya, a face-book called her to Dabra on 07.06.2023
on the pretext of showing her a Plot. She came to Dabra
on that day. He took the prosecutrix to the High way
where, he offiered Cold drink to her. After having cold
drink, she started feeling faint. Thereafter, the petitioner
took her to the loanly plce near canal and committed
rape on her. Thereafter he fled away. On basis of this
complaint, PS Dabra Distt. Gwalior registered FIR in
Crime No.482/2023 for offence punishable under
Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and proceeded with the
investigation. The statements of complainant and
witnesses were recorded. The prosecutrix was sent for
medical examination. The petitioner was arrested the
investigation is underway.
During pendency of this petition,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1328
4 MCRC-43501-2024
I.A.No.17666/2023 and 12667/2023 which are the
applications under Sections 320 and 320 (2) of the
Cr.P.C respectively, have been filed for granting
permission to compound the offence along with
affidavits of petitioners and respondent No.2 stating
therein that they have resolved the dispute amicably and
they do not wish to pursue the matter anymore.
This Court vide order dated 27.09.2023, had directed
the parties to appear before the Pr.Registrar of this
Court for recoding their statements and for verification
of factum of compromise. The Pr. Registrar has
submitted his report on 29.09.2023 and verified the
factum of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
both the parties have amicably settled their dispute,
therefore, the FIR in Crime No.482/2023 registered at
PS Dabra Distt. Gwalior may be quashed.
Counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2/complainant does not dispute the factum of
compromise between the parties.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1328
5 MCRC-43501-2024
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 of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by
public servants while working in that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1328
6 MCRC-43501-2024
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1328
7 MCRC-43501-2024
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1328
8 MCRC-43501-2024
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".
In light of aforementioned proposition of law, the
fact situation of present case is examined. Although the
investigation into the offence of cheating alleged
against the applicant was initiated on the complaint of
respondent No.2 Rahul but it was revealed during
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1328
9 MCRC-43501-2024
investigation from the accused has forged appointment
letter dated 5.7.2019, identity card, Pan card, Aadhar
Card and also forged letter of Indian Naval Base,
Mumbai. The petitioner/accused not only tried to cheat
the complainant but also tried to jeopardize the image
of Indian Navy. The alleged offence has larger
ramification on public order and security of the nation.
Therefore, it no longer remains a private dispute
between the applicant and respondent No.2 Rahul. The
magnitude of the offence needs due consideration. At
this juncture, it cannot be said that the chances of
conviction are remote and bleak. To stifle or to scuttle
such a trial at initial stage by invoking inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC would itself be
an abuse of process of Court.
Considering the aforementioned aspects of the
matter, no case is made out to invoke inherent
jurisdiction for quashment of FIR.
Consequently, I.A.No.12564/2023, an application
under Section 320 of CrPC and MCRC No.30255/2023,
petition under Section 482 of CrPC stand dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned
Police Station for information and compliance."
8. Hence, once the application for quashment of FIR on the basis of
compromise has already been dismissed on merit, coupled with the fact that
allegation of rape is a heinous offence and cannot said to be a personal/private in
nature and necessarily it is against the society and in the light of judgment passed
by the Supreme Court in the case of Narindar Singh (Supra) FIR cannot be
quashed on the basis of compromise. Since, applicant has made an attempt to play
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1328
10 MCRC-43501-2024
fraud on the Court by suppressing the fact that a similar application for
quashement of FIR on the basis of compromise has already been dismissed and
the said fact was also not mentioned by applicant -Rinku Mourya in his statement
made before the Principal Registrar of this Court, which was recorded in
compliance of order dated 17/12/2024, this Court is of considered opinion that the
matter is to be dealt with iron hand so that no one can dare to play fraud on the
Court by suppressing the material facts.
9. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be
deposited by the applicant in the Registry of this Court within a period of 30 days
from today.
10. It is directed that in case, if cost is not deposited, then Principal
Registrar of this Court shall not only initiate the proceedings for recovery of cost
but shall also register a case for contempt of Court.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
PjS/-
