Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 776 (MP)

Sant Kumar Namdeo v. State of M. P.

2015-07-29

SUBHASH KAKADE

body2015
ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the applicant for quashment of FIR registered vide Crime No.454/2014 under sections 498A, 294, 323, 506/34 of the IPC and under sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at PS-Kotwali, District-Panna. 2. The non-applicant No.2 Smt. Laxmi Namdeo was married with applicant Sant Kumar Namdeo in the year 2009. On complaint lodged by the non-applicant No.2, a case was registered under the aforesaid crime no. against her husband Sant Kumar Namdeo. 3. Certain unfortunate incidents relating to matrimonial matter have dragged the parties to this Court. Now, the parties have settled all their disputes and want to compromise the matter. IA No.24541/2014 and IA No.24542/2014 applications under section 320 (1) and 320(2) of the CrPC have also been filed along with affidavits by the parties. 4. As per order of this Court willingness and consent of the parties have been recorded before Registrar (J-I) today i.e.on dated 6.7.2015. Non-applicant No.2 Smt. Laxmi Namdeo (complainant before the trial Court) and applicant Sant Kumar Namdeo (accused) were present in person . They were identified by their respective counsel. Both parties submit that they are ready and willing to resolve their disputes voluntarily and by free consent. They have expressed in clear unequivocal terms that disputes have also been resolved. In the light of the aforesaid factual position it is apparent that the applicant and the accused have entered into compromise voluntarily without any fear, undue influence or pressure. 5. The question which now remains to be answered is whether since offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable, the criminal proceedings or FIR could be quashed. 6. It is apparent from perusal of the related documents that the applicant and non-applicant No.2 are respectable citizens. It is pertinent to mention here that dispute between the parties is of private nature and having no adverse effect to others. 7. 6. It is apparent from perusal of the related documents that the applicant and non-applicant No.2 are respectable citizens. It is pertinent to mention here that dispute between the parties is of private nature and having no adverse effect to others. 7. The apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [2012 AIR SCW 5333], considered the relevant provisions of the Code and concluded as under :- “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. 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”. 8. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of the apex Court in Ram Lal and another v. State of J & K [ (1999) 2 SCC 213 ], Ishwar Singh v. State of M.P. [ (2008) 15 SCC 667 ], and recently ruled by the apex Court in the case of Pappu and others v. Radhika and another [(2012 CrLR (SC) 69)]. 9. 9. Since the parties had buried the hatchet by amicably settling their disputes, this Court could allow the matter to be compounded. In the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that the settlement arrived at between the parties in form of compromise application is a sensible step that will benefit the parties, give quietus to the controversy and rehabilitate and normalize the relationship between them. In light of compromise between the parties for offences related to matrimonial disputes chances of recording of conviction against the applicant are totally bleak and the entire exercise of trial is destined to be exercise of futility. The continuation of criminal proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law. 10. In the above facts and circumstances of the case the answer of question is given in affirmative and resultantly the FIR registered vide Crime No. 454/2014 for offence punishable under sections 498A, 294, 323 and 506/34 of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential proceedings arising from it are hereby quashed. Accused/applicant Sant Kumar Namdeo is acquitted of the aforesaid offences. 11. The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below for intimation and necessary compliance.