Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 382 (MP)

Manvendra Singh Dangi v. State of M. P.

2016-05-09

M.K.MUDGAL

body2016
ORDER 1. The case diary is available. 2. With the consent of both the parties, the final arguments were heard at the motion stage. 3. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under section 482 of CrPC, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the FIR registered at PS Bhander District Datia bearing Crime No.248 of 2015 for the offences punishable under sections 366 and 506 of IPC and all consequent proceedings. 4. Facts in nut-shell giving rise to the petition are that the complainant/respondent No.2 Smt. Deepa Yadav, the mother of respondent No.3/victim Soniya Dangi aged near about 22 years, lodged a report at PS Bhander District Datia against the petitioner and two other co-accused stating that the petitioner-accused used to keep evil eye on her daughter and in the afternoon on 9.9.2015 when there was no male member at home, he armed with a gun came to her house along with two other co-accused and threatening her to kill her, forcibly took away her daughter with him. On the said report, a case was registered against the petitioner and co-accused for the offences as stated herein above, which is pending. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made by the respondent No.2 are totally false and concocted because, the respondent No.3/victim was in love with the petitioner and because of that, she left home and went with him for marrying with him and she got married to the petitioner on 15.9.2015 in Arya Samaj Mandir. Hence, no offence is made out against the petitioner in the case owing to which, with a view to put the dispute at rest, petitioner and respondent No.3/victim jointly filed I. A. No.3372 of 2016 on 13.4.2016 under section 320 of CrPC for compromise stating therein that respondent No.2/complainant lodged the false FIR alleging kidnapping of the respondent No.3/victim and threatening the family members, but the respondent No.3/victim voluntarily went along with the petitioner and got married with him in the Arya Samaj Mandir Lohamandi Kilagate Gwalior as per her own will and they are living as husband and wife happily. The application was jointly signed by petitioner-accused and respondent No.3 and duly supported by their affidavits with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings as stated herein above. The compromise was verified by the Principal Registrar on 2.4.2016. 6. The application was jointly signed by petitioner-accused and respondent No.3 and duly supported by their affidavits with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings as stated herein above. The compromise was verified by the Principal Registrar on 2.4.2016. 6. On perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that in view of the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner and respondent No.3/victim, the dispute stood resolved between the parties as the respondent No.3/ victim who was major, has herself stated in the application that she voluntarily went along with the petitioner and got married with him of her own sweet will. The alleged offences are not made out in this case owing to which, she does not want to prosecute the petitioner as she has become his wife. In such circumstances, there are bleak chances of conviction in this case. Hence, continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners would be mere abuse of the process of law in the instant case. 7. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [ (2012)10 SCC 303 ] (para 61), the Hon'ble apex Court has held as under : 61. 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. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society. 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 a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings. 8. In view of the admission made by respondent No.3/ victim in the application as aforesaid and as the compromise between the respondent No.3 and the petitioner has been arrived at, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. Continuation of the criminal case would be futile exercise and would be tantamount to abuse of process of law, despite settlement and compromise having been voluntarily reached between them. Continuation of the criminal case would be futile exercise and would be tantamount to abuse of process of law, despite settlement and compromise having been voluntarily reached between them. Considering the nature of offence and facts and circumstances of the case, the petition may be allowed in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. 9. In view of the foregoing and having regard to the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties above and in the light of law laid down by the apex Court in the cases of Gyan Singh (supra), the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner/accused pertaining to FIR registered at PS Bhander, District Datia bearing Crime No.248 of 2015 for the offences punishable under sections 366 and 506 of IPC and all consequent proceedings are ordered to be quashed. This petition is disposed of accordingly.