Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 860 (MP)

Pankaj@Natti v. State of M. P.

2015-08-19

SUJOY PAUL

body2015
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482, CrPC, to challenge the order dated 4.4.2012, whereby the Court below has partly allowed his application under section 320 CrPC. The parties entered into a “Rajinama”. The offences are under sections 323, 393 IPC read with section 13 of Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 (for short, the “MPDVPK Adhiniyam”). The Court below opined that offence under section 323 IPC is compoundable under section 320(1) CrPC but section 393 IPC is not compoundable, more so, when it is read with section 13 of MPDVPK Adhiniyam. 2. Criticizing this order, Shri Ankit Saxena State of M.P. and another relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [ (2012)10 SCC 303 ]. 3. Prayer is opposed by the other side. 4. I have heard the parties and perused the record. 5. The judgment of Gian Singh (supra), was again considered by Supreme Court in (2014)6 SCC 466 (Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another). The apex Court opined that when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It is further held that while exercising the power, the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. The apex Court, in no uncertain terms, opined that such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 6. In the present case, the offence under section 393 IPC is alleged against the petitioner. section 393 is a heinous and serious offence. The said offence, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be private in nature. It will have a serious impact on society. 7. 6. In the present case, the offence under section 393 IPC is alleged against the petitioner. section 393 is a heinous and serious offence. The said offence, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be private in nature. It will have a serious impact on society. 7. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Court below has not committed any legal error in partly disallowing the said application to the extent of not compounding the offence under section 393 IPC. The order of Court below is in consonance with law. 8. I find no substance in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed.