Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shashibhushan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6805
1 MCRC-26030-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 22 nd OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 26030 of 2024
SHASHIBHUSHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abdhesh Singh Tomar - learned counsel for petitioners.
Ms. Ankita Mathur- learned Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
Shri Ajit Singh Bhadoria- learned counsel for complainant.
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties matter heard finally.
The petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short 'Cr.P.C.') has been preferred by the petitioners for quashment of FIR
registered at Crime No.391/2022 at Police Station- Maharajpura, District Gwalior
for offences under Sections 353, 186, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC and all
consequential proceedings therein.
3. The parties filed an application for compromise. The said application
was sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of this Court. The accused
and the complainant along with their counsel appeared before the Registrar on
18/03/2025. On verification, he submitted that the compromise has been arrived
between the parties without any pressure, duress or coercion and the parties have
entered into compromise willingly.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6805
2 MCRC-26030-2024
4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the matter pertaining to
offence registered against the petitioners under Sections 353, 186, 294, 506 and 34
of IPC has been amicably settled between both the parties and complainant has no
more grievance against the petitioner. Therefore, continuance of proceedings
before the trial Court will amount to sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court
and will also result in harassment of the parties.
5. Counsel for the State as well as complainant submits that the offences
under Sections 353, 186 and 34 of IPC are non-compoundable and Section 294
and 506 of IPC is compoundable offence under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation
vs. Sadhu Ram Singh & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 350, while considering the exercise of
inherent powers under Section 482 and 320 of Cr.P.C., has upheld the quashment
of non-compoundable offences, pursuant to settlement arrived at by the parties,
holding that exercise of judicial restraint vis-a-vis continuance of criminal
proceedings after compromise arrived at between the parties, may amount to abuse
of process of Court and futile exercise. Taking into account the law laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, as the compromise has arrived at
between the parties, thus continuation of the prosecution in such matters will be a
futile exercise, which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and
wasteful exercise by the Courts below. More so, offence in question is not against
the society, but merely affect the complainant.
8. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in 2012
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6805
3 MCRC-26030-2024
Cr.L.R. (SC) 883 the Apex Court held as under:-
"Section 482 of the Code, as its very language
suggests, saves the inherent power of the High Court
which it has by virtue of it being a superior court to
prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. It begins with the words,
'nothing in this Code' which means that the provision
is an overriding provision. These words leave no
manner of doubt that none of the provisions of the
Code limits or restricts the inherent power. The
guideline for exercise of such power is provided in
Section 482 itself i.e., to prevent abuse of the process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
As has been repeatedly stated that Section 482 confers
no new powers on High Court; it merely safeguards
existing inherent powers possessed by High Court
necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court
or to secure the ends of justice. It is equally well
settled that the power is not to be resorted to if there is
specific provision in the Code for the redress of the
grievance of an aggrieved party. It should be exercised
very sparingly and it should not be exercised as
against the express bar of law engrafted in any other
provision of the Code.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6805
4 MCRC-26030-2024
although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or
dismissal of indictment.
The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarized thus: the power of the High Court
in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint
in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and
different from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of the
Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord
with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled
their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be
prescribed. However, before exercise of such power,
the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though
the victim or victim's family and the offender have
settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in
nature and have serious impact on society. But the
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil flavour stand on 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. In this category of cases, High Court
may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because
of the compromise between the offender and victim,
the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put accused to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
case despite full and complete settlement and
compromise with the victim."
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments and also keeping in view the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6805
5 MCRC-26030-2024
fact that parties have arrived at amicable settlement, looking to the dictum of the
Apex Court in the case of Sadhu Ram Singh (Supra) and Gian Singh (Supra) , it
would be in the interest of justice to quash all the proceedings in respect of Crime
No.391/2022 registered at Police Station- Maharajpura, District Gwalior for
offences under Sections 353, 186, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC against the petitioners.
10. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and the First Information
Report in relation to Crime No.391/2022 registered at Police Station-
Maharajpura, District Gwalior for offences under Sections 353, 186, 294, 506 and
34 of IPC against the petitioners and all consequential proceedings arising therein
are hereby quashed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
Prachi
