Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 510 (MP)

Chaturdas Baba v. State of M. P.

2016-06-27

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2016
ORDER 1. This revision has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2015 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, in Criminal Appeal No. 25/2015 by which the application under sections 320(2), 320(1) CrPC for compromise between the parties was rejected on the ground that the accused has been convicted for the offence registered under section 354 of IPC and the offence is not compoundable. 2. The prosecution story is that the complainant Virendei, who is a resident of village Jarha and in the same village, a temple of Lord Hanuman is situated where the accused Chaturdas Baba used to reside. She used to visit the temple daily for worship. The accused developed attraction towards her. On 14.8.2013 the accused caught hold of her and tried to molest her and seek illegal favours. The offence was reported at the concerned Police Station and a complaint was also lodged against the accused. Charge under section 354 of IPC was framed. The matter was tried before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.3226/2013. The case was decided vide order dated 11.2.2015 in which the charge against accused was proved and the accused was convicted for the offence under section 354 IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1000/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction dated 11.2.2015 the accused filed an appeal before the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Morena, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.25/2015. 4. It seems that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings/appeal, the parties entered into a mutual settlement to dispel their misunderstanding and settle their disputes and to live in peace. A formal deed of compromise under section 320(1) of CrPC was drawn between the parties and the same was filed for consideration in the pending criminal appeal. 5. From the perusal of the application for compromise, it appears that with a view to maintain cordial relations and to live in peace, the parties have entered into a compromise. Admittedly, the offence for which the accused has been charged is non-compoundable, however, the parties agreed to forgive each other and have filed this joint application for quashing the criminal proceedings. 6. Admittedly, the offence for which the accused has been charged is non-compoundable, however, the parties agreed to forgive each other and have filed this joint application for quashing the criminal proceedings. 6. The learned appellate Court has dismissed the application merely on the ground that the appeal has been registered against the order of conviction and the offence under section 354 of IPC is a non-compoundable offence. The question whether the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offence can be quashed on the basis of mutual agreement between the parties arises for consideration in the present revision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases particularly a reference can be made to a judgment, reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 , Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined almost the entire law on the subject and has reiterated that the High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of CrPC is bound to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of mutual settlement particularly when the High Court is of the opinion that the quashment would meet the ends of justice and would prevent abuse of the process of any Court, the larger interest of the parties is also to be seen and for maintenance of peace, the proceedings can be quashed. 7. The Hon'ble apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [ (2012)10 SCC 303 ], has laid down certain guidelines with regard to the circumstances in which the criminal proceedings in a non-compoundable case can be quashed when there is a settlement between the parties. Following guidelines are provided in paragraph 58 of Gian Singh's case (supra) which is reproduced as under :- “Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the facts that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the 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 wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the 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 the permission of the Court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the 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 the victim and the offender and the 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 FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the 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-fast category can be prescribed.” 8. Admittedly, the offence in the present case is not of a serious nature like murder, rape, dacoity etc., therefore, in my considered view that this revision needs to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The criminal proceedings pending before 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Criminal Appeal No.25/2015 is hereby quashed. Puran Kulshreshtha for petitioner; Kamal Jain, Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State; Tajuddin Khan for respondent No.2.