Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 March, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6807
1 MCRC-49300-2024
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. 49300 of 2024
RAHUL SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nirmal Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dinesh Savita- Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Vishal Singh Bhadoria- Advocate for respondent No.2.
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 petitioner for quashment of FIR
registered at Crime No.58/2024 at Police Station- University, District Gwalior for
offence under Section 408 of IPC and subsequent criminal proceeding thereof, if
any, on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.
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
05.03.2025. 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:6807
2 MCRC-49300-2024
4. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the matter pertaining to
offence registered against the petitioner under Section 408 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 counsel for complainant submits that
FIR registered under Section 408 of IPC is compoundable in nature.
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
Cr.L.R. (SC) 883 the Apex Court held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6807
3 MCRC-49300-2024
"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 although the ultimate
consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of
indictment.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6807
4 MCRC-49300-2024
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:6807
5 MCRC-49300-2024
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.58/2024 registered at Police Station- University District Gwalior for offences
under Sections 408 of IPC and subsequent criminal proceeding thereof, if any,
against the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and the First Information
Report in relation to Crime No.58/2024 registered at Police Station- University
District Gwalior for offences under Section 408 of IPC and subsequent criminal
proceeding thereof, if any, against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
ar
