Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 974 (MP)

Gaffar Khan v. State of M. P.

2015-09-15

ALOK VERMA

body2015
ORDER 1. This application under section 482 of CrPC is filed by the applicant for quashment of proceeding pending before the 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.863/2015 (Gaffar Khan and others v. State of M.P.). 2. The brief facts giving rise to this application are that the present applicants faced a trial in Criminal Case No.26292/2010 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. They were convicted under section 498A of IPC and sentenced to 1 year R. I. each. Aggrieved by this conviction and sentenced, they filed an appeal before the Sessions Court which was made over to 10th Additional Sessions Judge where it is pending. 3. Meanwhile, the present applicants who were appellants before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the complainant in this case was Shabnam Bee entered into a compromise. They submitted an application under section 320 CrPC before the trial Court which was duly dismissed as the offence under section 498A is not compoundable. 4. Thereafter, this present application is filed for quashing of proceeding pending before the trial Court and also the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The applicants and the complainant Shabnam Bee appeared before this Court on 15.9.2015. On asking, they confirmed that they have entered into compromise and they are living peacefully now. The complainant in this case further submits that she does not want any action against the present applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants cited the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in Narinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another [(2014)3 SCC (Cri) 54]. In this case, Hon'ble apex Court in para 29 of the judgment laid down the guidelines on which the High Court using the extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 and quash the charges framed under non-compoundable offences. Taking the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court under consideration. It is apparent that the present dispute regarding family matter. It is their personal dispute and society at large is not affected by the dispute. The Hon'ble apex Court in para 29.2 laid down two tests stating therein that 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. 6. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 7. 6. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 7. Regarding section 307 of IPC, the apex Court observed in para 29.6 as under :- “Offences under section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.” 8. After going into aforesaid guidelines into consideration and applying them into the present case, I find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred of this Court may exercise in favour of the applicants. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 9. The proceeding pending before the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.863/2015 (Gaffar Khan and others v. State of M.P.) are quashed. Also the conviction and sentence awarded on the present applicants by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No.26292/2010 by judgment dated 28.11.2014 are set aside. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 9. The proceeding pending before the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.863/2015 (Gaffar Khan and others v. State of M.P.) are quashed. Also the conviction and sentence awarded on the present applicants by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Criminal Case No.26292/2010 by judgment dated 28.11.2014 are set aside. The applicants are discharged from offence under section 498A of IPC. 10. The amount of fine if deposited by them shall be refunded to them. 11. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the application is disposed of.