Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 174 (MP)

Jitendra Chhitija v. State of M. P.

2021-02-18

AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2021
ORDER : Akhil Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking quashment of criminal complaint No. 07 [CNSR No. MP21010125602019] against the petitioner pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni, for having committed offence under sections 498-A of IPC and further proceeding thereon. 2. According to the case of prosecution, on 28.04.2016 petitioner and respondent No. 2 got married as per Hindu rites and rituals at Narsinghpur. Out of wedlock, one daughter Ku. Mannat born. It is alleged that after marriage, serious differences arose between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. The family members of respondent No. 2 made complaint against the petitioner and the family members of petitioner. The respondent No. 2 made a criminal complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni, against the petitioner, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law making allegation of demand of dowry. After hearing the arguments, the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class-Katni, registered complaint only against the petitioner/husband for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC vide order dated 23.12.2019. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the compromise has taken place between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. Both are living together along with their daughter happily. Now, there is no dispute between them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed I.A. No. 13177/2020 an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C., jointly by the parties supported by affidavits for compromise. With these submissions prayed to quash the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 in regard to registration of the FIR against the petitioner. 4. This Court vide order dated 22.12.2020, directed for verification of the genuineness and authenticity of the compromise between the parties. On 09.02.2021, the Registrar(J-II), recorded the statement of petitioner and the complainant/respondent No. 2, the same reads as under:- ".......I personally posed question to complainant Smt. Harsha Chhitija to verify about the voluntariness of the proposed compromise. She has expressed that, she has voluntarily entered into a compromise with applicant with her free will and volition and without any threat and inducement from the applicant to settle their disputes. I satisfied myself about the fact that complainant Smt. Harsha Chhitija did not appear to be under any threat inducement or pressure in entering into a compromise as proposed. I satisfied myself about the fact that complainant Smt. Harsha Chhitija did not appear to be under any threat inducement or pressure in entering into a compromise as proposed. Complainant Smt. Harsha Chhitija appeared before me and submitted that she has amicably resolved the disputes between herself and Applicant and now, their matter stands fully and finally settled....." 5. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that matter has been amicably settled between the parties and petitioner and respondent No. 2/complainant are living together happily and in terms of compromise, prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 23.12.2019. 6. Section 498-A of IPC reads as under:- "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]" 7. For ready reference Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is as follows:- "482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anita Maria Dias & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2018 (3) SCC 290 in Paragraph-7 has held under: "7. In a case like this, where the proceedings are still at initial and nascent stage, the High Court should have exercised its discretion in quashing the proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anita Maria Dias & another Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2018 (3) SCC 290 in Paragraph-7 has held under: "7. In a case like this, where the proceedings are still at initial and nascent stage, the High Court should have exercised its discretion in quashing the proceedings. Law in this behalf is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court including Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2017) 9 SCC 641 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 . We may also quote the following passage from the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466 : "29. 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: 29.1. 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. 29.2. 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. 29.3. Such a power is not to 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. 29.3. Such a power is not to 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 the 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. 29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly 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. 29.6. 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. 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. 29.7. 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 to 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. 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." 9. On consideration of the above legal and factual position and taking into consideration the fact that though the offence is not compoundable but Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana 2003 (4) SCC 675 & Nikhil Merchant Vs. CBI & Another, 2008 (9) SCC 677 has held that on the basis of compromise even in non-compoundable offences, if the parties want to withdraw all claims and allegations against each other, then technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way. In the present case, the complainant does not want to proceed against the present petitioner. The grievances of the complainant have been satisfied, therefore, no useful purpose will be served looking to the compromise reached between the present petitioner. 10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Court of JMFC, Katni in Misc. criminal complaint No. 07/2020, is hereby set aside and proceedings initiated against the present petitioner are hereby quashed. 11. Accordingly, the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of in above terms.