Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 354 (MP)

NARENDRA s/o VITTHALNATH TIWARI v. STATE OF M. P.

2014-03-28

P.K.JAISWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. Shri A. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Devendra Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant No. 1/State. Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 2. Heard. The non-applicant No. 2 who is legally married wife of applicant lodged a FIR against her husband registered at Crime No. 56/2011. 2. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the applicant under sections 498-A, 323 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code 3. During pendency of the criminal proceeding, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and, therefore, an application for compounding under section 320(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Glass, Indore allowed the application partly on 13-2-2014 and compounded the offence under sections 323 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code and rejected the application in respect of an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant made a statement at bar that dispute has been settled between the parties and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties they have also filed the application for compromise before the Appellate Court. The application of compromise is supported by the affidavit of the parties. The complainant and the applicant at some point earlier married to each other. As of now a compromise has been effected between the parties. In the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that settlement had arrived between the parties is sensible step that will benefit the parties, give quietus to the controversy and rehabilitate and normalize the relationship between them. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and another, reported in 2013(2) SCC (Cri.) 302 and has held that, Even, in non-compoundable offences pertaining to matrimonial disputes, if Court is satisfied that parties have settled the disputes amicably and without any pressure, then for purpose of securing ends of justice, FIR or complaint or subsequent criminal proceedings in respect of said offences, held, can be quashed under section 482 of the Code. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and ors. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and ors. vs. State of Haryana and anr., reported as AIR 2003 SC 1386 (1) and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr., reported as 2012 Cri.L.J. 4934. Para 7 of the judgment in the case of B. S. Joshi and ors. vs. State of Haryana is relevant which reads as under :— 7. The High Court has relied upon Madhu Limaye’s case for coming to the conclusion that since the offence under sections 498-A and 406, Indian Penal Code are non-compoundable, it would be impermissible in law to quash the FIR on the ground that there has been a settlement between the parties. The decision in Madhy Limaye’s case, has been misread and misapplied by the High Court, The question considered in that case was when there was a bar on the power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in an appeal, enquiry, trial or other proceedings, what would be its effect on exercise of power under section 482 of the Code. Sub-section (2) of section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code providing that the power of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceedings was noticed and it was held, that on a plain reading of section 482, it would follow that nothing in the Code, which would include sub-section (2) of section 397 also, “shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court”. The Court said that if we were to say that the said bar is not to operate in the exercise of the inherent power at all, it will be setting at naught one of the limitations imposed upon the exercise of the revisional powers but adopting a harmonious approach held that the bar provided in sub-section (2) of section 307 operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. It was further held that, then, in accordance with one of the other principles enunciated above, the inherent power will come into play there being no other provision in the Code for the redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party. In Madhu Limaye’s case, it was, inter alia, said that if the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of the inherent power by the High Court. By way of illustration, an example was given where without jurisdiction the Court takes cognizance or issues process and assumes it to be an interlocutory order, would it stand to reason to say that inherent power of the High Court cannot be exercised for stopping the criminal proceedings as early as possible since being an interlocutory order, it was not revisable and resultantly the accused had to be harassed up to the end, though the order taking cognizance or issuing process was without, jurisdiction. It was held that the bar will not operate to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and/or to secure the ends of justice. 8. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr. (supra) the Apex Court in paragraphs 53 and 54 gave very categorical finding which reads as under :— 53. 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. 54. 54. Where .High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that dispute between the offender and victim has been settled although offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrong doing that seriously endangers and threatens well-being of society and it is not safe to leave the crime- doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc; or other offences of mental depravity under Indian Penal Code or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between offender and victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to victim and the offender and victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or F.I.R. if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and category can be prescribed. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr. has observed thus :— “57. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard and category can be prescribed. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anr. has observed thus :— “57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised 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 ho 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. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis far quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly 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 where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category pf 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. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 10. I am satisfied that the complainant is voluntarily desired to compound the offence with the applicant for sufficient and genuine reasons stated in the affidavit, the offences have not been made. 11. In the light of the above discussion, this Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings and FIR in such cases (matrimonial) where the parties are ready to compromise their dispute, in order to meet the ends of justice and section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code does not limit or affect the powers of this Court. Under these circumstances, this Court by exercising the inherent powers quashed the criminal proceeding and FIR in respect of matrimonial dispute against the applicant. Criminal Case No. 15199/2011 as well as FIR registered at Crime No. 56/2011 lodged by the non-applicant No. 2 against the applicant are hereby quashed. 12. For the above mentioned reasons, the petition filed by the applicant is allowed and disposed of.