Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Savita Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15552
1 MCRC-50326-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50326 of 2023
SMT. SAVITA SAHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vikram Singh - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri B.S. Yadav - Advocate for the complainant.
None for the State.
ORDER
In compliance to the order dated 06.02.2025, petitioners have filed IA
No.3416/2025 for impleading the complainant in the array of respondents.
IA No. 3416/2025 is allowed .
Let necessary amendment be carried during the course of the day.
Heard.
By this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners are
seeking quashing of FIR No. 0714/2016 registered at Police Station TT
Nagar Bhopal on12/09/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 420,
467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC and the consequential proceedings
thereof.
2 . On 06.02.2025, it was informed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the parties have entered into a compromise and the matter has
been settled between them ex curia and as such, no dispute exists between
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15552
2 MCRC-50326-2023
them and therefore they seek quashment of the proceedings initiated in
pursuance of FIR No. 0714/2016. Considering the said submission of the
counsel, this Court directed both the parties to appear before the Registrar (J-
II) alongwith their counsel for getting their statements recorded. The parties
appeared before the Registrar and their statements have been recorded
and copies whereof are also available on record.
3 . I have perused the statements of both the parties and as per their
statements, they have stated that they have entered into a compromise and
settled their dispute amicably and now they do not want to prosecute the
matter. They have also stated that they have entered into the compromise out
of their own free will and without fear and pressure.
4. Considering the aforesaid and in view of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Sadhu Ram
Singla and another reported in [2017(2) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) (S.C.) 397] wherein it
has been held as under:-
'7. The question which arises before us is no longer res
integra i.e. whether FIR and the consequential
proceedings alleging non-compoundable offences could
be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal Procedure
Code on the basis of the settlement arrived at between
the complainant and the respondents-accused. Since the
question before us revolves around clause 9 of section
320 of Criminal Procedure Code, the same is
reproduced herein as follows:
"320. Compounding of offences.-
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(9) No offence shall be compounded except
as provided by this section."
8. We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the CBI and learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondents at length and carefully
examined the materials placed on record. We have also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15552
3 MCRC-50326-2023
taken notice of the fact that the counsel for the appellant
in High Court had sought time for filing the reply but no
reply was filed. We have also taken notice of the fact
that the High Court while quashing the said FIR and
consequential proceedings, has relied on the Full Bench
judgment of that High Court in the case of Kulwinder
Singh and ors vs. State of Punjab and anr., 2007 (4)
CTC 769, in which reliance was placed on the judgment
delivered by this Court in the case of Mrs. Shakuntala
Sawhney vs. Mrs. Kaushalya Sawhney and ors., (1980)
1 SCC 63.
9. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
the CBI has drawn our attention to the decision of this
Court in Manoj Sharma vs. State and ors., 2008 MPLJ
Online (Cri.) (S.C.) 7 = (2008) 16 SCC 1, wherein it
was observed by this Court:
"22. Since section 320, Criminal Procedure
Code has clearly stated which offences are
compoundable and which are not, the High
Court or even this Court would not ordinarily
be justified in doing something indirectly
which could not be done directly. Even
otherwise, it ordinarily would not be a
legitimate exercise of judicial power under
Article 226 of the Constitution or under
section 482, Criminal Procedure Code to
direct doing something which Criminal
Procedure Code has expressly prohibited.
Section 320(9), Criminal Procedure Code
expressly states that no offence shall be
compounded except as provided by that
Section. Hence, in my opinion, it would
ordinarily not be a legitimate exercise of
judicial power to direct compounding of a
non-compoundable offence."
* * *
15. Having carefully considered the singular
facts and circumstances of the present case,
and also the law relating to the continuance
of criminal cases where the complainant and
the accused had settled their differences and
had arrived at an amicable arrangement, we
see no reason to differ with the view taken in
Manoj Sharma's case (supra) and several
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:15552
4 MCRC-50326-2023
decisions of this Court delivered thereafter
with respect to the doctrine of judicial
restraint. In concluding hereinabove, we are
not unmindful of the view recorded in the
decisions cited at the Bar that depending on
the attendant facts, continuance of the
criminal proceedings, after a compromise has
been arrived at between the complainant and
the accused, would amount to abuse of
process of Court and an exercise in futility
since the trial would be prolonged and
ultimately, it may end in a decision which
may be of no consequence to any of the
parties.'
and also in a case of Santosh Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and another reported in Criminal Appeal No.1895/2019 (arising out
of SLP (Criminal) No.9151 of 2019) , this Court is also of the opinion that
when the parties have already entered into the settlement, it would be a futile
exercise to keep the proceeding pending and as such, FIR No. 0714/2016
registered against the present petitioners for the offences punishable sections
420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station TT Nagar
Bhopal on 12/09/2016 is hereby quashed. Needless to say that all the further
proceedings initiated in pursuance of registration of said offence shall also
stand quashed.
5. The petition is hereby allowed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
RAGHVENDRA
