Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 116 (MP)

Mukesh v. State of M. P.

2020-01-21

S.K.AWASHTI

body2020
ORDER 1. Applicant has preferred this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘The Code’), praying for quashment of First Information Report bearing crime No. 002/2013, registered at police station – Mahila Thana, District – Indore, against the applicant for offence punishable under sections 294, 498A, 506 of IPC, 1860 and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 so also the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 2130/2013. 2. Relevant facts, briefly stated, the marriage of the applicant and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 4.7.2012 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Indore. After the marriage the applicant and respondent No. 2 were residing together as husband and wife at Indore. However, due to the harassment and torture made by the applicant for fulfillment of demand of dowry the respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial house and started living separately. On 9.1.2013 respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore. On the basis of which FIR under sections 294, 498A, 506 of IPC, 1860 and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 was registered against the applicant. On completion of investigation, challan has been filed. 3. During the pendency of the trial, the applicant filed a case under section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act before the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore praying for a decree of divorce. By ex-parte order dated 18.1.2016 the Family Court allowed the application and decreed the suit. Now on the basis of amicable settlement arrived at between applicant and respondent No.2, compromise application under sections 320(8) and 320(2) of ‘The Code’ was filed before the trial Court, however, the learned Court partly allowed the compromise and acquitted the applicant with regard to offence under section 506/34 and declined to accept the application with regard to offence under sections 294, 498A of IPC, 1860 and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the ground that the same are not compoundable, hence the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both the parties have settled their disputes amicably and entered into compromise and they did not want to continue the proceedings of the case. The offence involved in the matter is of personal in nature and not against the society. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both the parties have settled their disputes amicably and entered into compromise and they did not want to continue the proceedings of the case. The offence involved in the matter is of personal in nature and not against the society. Since, the applicant and the respondent No. 2 have entered into compromise, continuance of proceedings before the Court will amount to sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court and will also result in harassment to the parties, hence counsel prayed for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 002/2013, registered at police station – Mahila Thana, District –Indore against the applicant for offence punishable under sections 498A, 294 of IPC, 1860 and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 so also the criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 2130/2013. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It appears from the record that it was a family dispute between the parties, which was amicably settled by them. On 10.12.2019, this Court has directed the Principal Registrar to verify the factum of compromise. The Principal Registrar, in its report dated 5.1.2020 has stated that the applicant and complainant/respondent No.2 have amicably settled their dispute voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion. It is true that section 294 and 498A of IPC, 1860 and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are non-compoundable offences, however, Hon’ble the apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anr., reported in (2012)10 SCC 303 has recognized the need of amicable resolution of disputes, by observing as under: “61. 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 proceedings or continuation of criminal proceedings 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 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.” 7. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the apex Court in the judgment of Narinder Singh and ors. v. State of Punjab and ors. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the apex Court in the judgment of Narinder Singh and ors. v. State of Punjab and ors. reported in (2014)6 SCC 466 . The pertinent observations of the apex Court in reads as under: “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings: (I) Power conferred under section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. (II) 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. While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. (III) Such a power is not 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 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. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (IV) On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves. (V) While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases. (VI) Offences under section 307 IPC would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is 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 later 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. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. 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. (VII) While deciding whether to exercise its power under section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial Court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the offence under section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial Court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by the trial Court. Here charge is proved under section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.” 8. Taking into account the law laid down by Hon’ble apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, as the compromise between the parties was arrived at, thus continuation of the prosecution in the matter will be a futile exercise, which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, section 482 of ‘the Code’ can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and wasteful exercise by the Courts below. Under such a situation, section 482 of ‘the Code’ can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and wasteful exercise by the Courts below. More so, offence in question are not against the society, but merely affect the victim. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for quashment is hereby allowed and First Information Report bearing crime No. 002/2013, registered at police station – Mahila Thana, District – Indore, against the applicant for offence punishable under sections 498A, 294 of IPC, 1860 and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 so also the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 2130/2013 are hereby quashed. 10. Resultantly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 51672/2019 stands allowed. ...................