Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 160 (MP)

Hemraj v. State of M. P.

2021-02-16

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : Subodh Abhyankar, J. 1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants for quashment of the charges levelled against them under Sections 307/34, 326/34, 325/34, 324/34, 323/34, 294, 506 (2)/34, 188/34 of IPC by order dated 01.02.2021 passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District-Shajapur in S.T. No. 172/2020. 2. The aforesaid application has been filed by the applicants on the ground that the applicants and the respondent No. 2 Ramesh Chandra Parmar/the complainant are closely related as the respondent No. 2-Ramesh Chandra Parmar/the complainant happens to be the brother of the applicant No. 1-Hemraj as both of them are the sons of Mohan Singh; whereas the applicants No. 2 & 3 are the sons of the applicant No. 1-Hemraj. 3. It is submitted that the incident has taken place on the spur of the moment whereby the applicants' tractor entered into a pile of straw of the complainant which led to the dispute and the complainant was assaulted by an iron rod by the applicants, due to which, the complainant suffered injuries on his head, nose and finger which included a fracture on his nose. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Narender Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , wherein also in a case registered under Section 307 of the IPC, the Supreme Court has allowed the petition and quashed the F.I.R. Counsel has also relied upon paragraphs 29.4 and 29.5 of the said judgment, which are as follows:- 29.4 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. 29.5 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. 5. 29.5 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. 5. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that since the applicants belong to the same family and they have reconciled their disputes and vowed to live peacefully hence, no purpose would be served to keep the matter pending as otherwise also the case is going to culminate in the acquittal of the applicants. 6. Thus, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that not only the dispute was related to the family members but also the chances of conviction are bleak as the parties have already reconciled their disputes. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that looking to the injuries suffered by the complainant, no case to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is made out. Ms. Khare has also referred to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported as (2019) 5 SCC 688 . Para 11.5, 12, 29.6 and 15.4. 8. Shri Mukesh Sinjoniya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant has submitted that both the parties have already started living peacefully with each other as they are living adjacently in the same premises. The respondent No. 2/complainant-Rameshchandra Parmar is also present in this Court and has submitted that he has no objection if the application is allowed. 9. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that on 11.2.2021 this Court had also directed that the parties shall remain present in person before this and in compliance of the aforesaid order, the parties are present before this Court today. This Court also put a query to Rameshchandra Parmar-the respondent No. 2/complainant regarding his willingness to settle the dispute and he has submitted that he has no objection if the present application is allowed and the criminal case pending against them is disposed of. He has also submitted that he is peacefully living with the applicants and now there is no quarrel between them. 10. He has also submitted that he is peacefully living with the applicants and now there is no quarrel between them. 10. So far as in the case of Laxmi Narayan (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under: "15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act, etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious Offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act, etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Could 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 framing 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/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge-sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paras 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in Narinder Singh should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;" (emphasis supplied) 11. On perusal of the record, it reveals that the charges have already been framed. On perusal of the case diary, it is also found that initially the F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 324/34, 294, 506(2)/34 of the IPC and subsequently, after the X-ray report, it is found that the complainant has suffered Nasal bone fracture and hence, offence under Section 325 and 326 of the IPC were also included whereas the charge u/S. 307 of IPC was also framed inter alia. Admittedly, the assault was made by the petitioner No. 1 Hemraj with an iron rod which has also been recovered at his instance and in the property seizure memo the description of which is referred as a hollow iron pipe. It is also found that the injured was hospitalized for a period of three days only from 05.04.2020 to 07.04.2020. His discharge summary of the District Hospital, Sehore also reveals that his condition was 'fine' at the time of discharge. 12. In this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed a call letter issued to the petitioner No. 3 Aman Parmar from the Air Force for his enrollment in IAF for Group 'X" (TECH) which also shows that the petitioner no. 3 is ready to move forward in life and also wants to serve the nation which is also a circumstances to be taken into consideration in favour of the petitioners. 13. Thus, the aforesaid mitigating circumstances make out of the case for interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 14. In view of the aforesaid and also considering the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Narender Singh and others (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that a case where the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised to settle the dispute between the parties once and for all, is made out and since the parties who are closely related, after settling their disputes, are already residing peacefully, it would be expedient to N quash the charges framed against them by the trial court. 15. Resultantly, the present M.Cr.C. stands allowed and the impugned order dated 1.2.2021 passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Shujalpur, District-Shajapur in S.T. No. 172/2020 is set aside and the charges framed against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 307/34, 326/34, 325/34, 324/34, 323/34, 294, 506(2)/34, 188/34 of I.P.C. are hereby quashed. Certified copy, as per rules.