Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 389 (MP)

Raghunath Shrivastava v. State of M. P.

2006-03-13

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2006
ORDER 1. Heard. Petitioner Raghunath Shrivastava and Sunil Gupta, who are injured and accused respectively, have filed this joint petition under section 482, CrPC for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Katni, pertaining to Crime No. 31 of 2005 registered by Police Bahoriband. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.2.2005, at about 100' clock in the night when complainant Raghunath Shrivastava was going to attend some celebration at the house of Gudda Seth, at the Bus-stand, accused Sunil Gupta accosted him and demanded money from him for liquor, on his refusal he abused him and inflicted knife injuries on his fingers and nose. On report of Raghunath Shrivastava Police Bahoriband registered a case under sections 341, 294 and 327 of IPC against Sunil Gupta. 3. Sunil Gupta had been granted anticipatory bail for a limited duration. His application for regular bail was, however rejected as he did not surrender. At present Sunil Gupta is absconding. 4. Petitioners Raghunath Shrivastava and Sunil Gupta have filed this petition for quashing the first information report as well as criminal proceedings of the criminal case pending against letter on the ground that they have compounded the offence and resolved the dispute amicably. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the dispute has been compromised, criminal proceeding against petitioner Sunil Gupta is abuse of the process of law and as such it deserves to be quashed. He placed reliance on the ratio of the case of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another reported in 2003 (I) MPWN 145 = AIR 2003 SC 1386 wherein on settlement of matrimonial dispute between husband and wife the criminal proceedings of the case under section 498A of IPC were quashed by the apex Court. 5. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the present petition of the petitioners deserves to be dismissed. 6. The apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) had exercised the power under section 482, CrPC in view of the special features in matrimonial matters feeling it to be the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of the matrimonial disputes. 6. The apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) had exercised the power under section 482, CrPC in view of the special features in matrimonial matters feeling it to be the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of the matrimonial disputes. It observed that "there is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of IPC". But the position in the present case is different wherein the accused/petitioner for extorting money for liquor had caused injuries to complainant. It is also relevant to mention here that the offence under section 327 of IPC is not compoundable under the provisions of section 320 of CrPC and accused Sunil Gupta is still absconding. 7. In the above circumstances, I am of the firm opinion that the ratio of the B.S. Joshi's case (supra) cannot be made applicable in the present type of case. In view of the above discussion this petition is dismissed.