Hemsingh @ Chhotu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 14 November, 2017

MCRC No.10003/2017
Hem Singh alias Chotu Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Anr.

Gwalior, Dated: 14.11.2017
Shri Anant Kumar Bansal, learned counsel, for
the petitioners.
Shri Shiraz Quraishi, learned Public
Prosecutor, for respondent no.1/State.
Shri Hari Singh Chauhan, learned counsel, for
respondent no.2/complainant.
On due consideration, the documents filed on
behalf of the petitioners vide document
No.9715/2017 are taken on record.
With the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage
and the following order is passed:

ORDER

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under
Section 482 of the CrPC for compounding the
offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 377
of the IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
(for short “DP Act”) for which they are facing trial
in Sessions Case No. 441/2015, which is pending
in the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge
Dabra district Gwalior (Shri Deepesh Tiwari).

2. The short facts of the case are that upon the
FIR of respondent No.2 Smt. Sonam Baghel, the
Police of Police Station Dabra district Gwalior
registered a case at Crime No.377/2015 against
MCRC No.10003/2017
Hem Singh alias Chotu Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Anr.

the petitioners for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 377, 504, 506 and 34 IPC and 3
and 4 DP Act. As per the FIR, petitioner No. 1 Hem
Singh Baghel is the husband of respondent No. 2
and the remaining petitioners are her relations-in-
law. Upon completion of the investigation, the
police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners
in the aforesaid Sections of law in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class Dabra which in turn
committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court
Division Gwalior. Thereupon, Sessions Trial
No.441/2015 is registered and is made over for
trial to the Additional Sessions Judge Dabra. As
per the proceedings recorded by the learned ASJ
on 16.08.2017, the date of hearing of the case,
petitioner No.1 Hem Singh Bhagel is facing trial for
the charges under Sections 498-A, 377 and 323
r.w. 34 IPC and 3 and 4 DP Act and the remaining
petitioners are facing trial for the charges under
Sections 498-A, 323 r.w. 34 IPC and 3 and 4 DP
Act. The said proceedings also reveal that
petitioners and respondent No.2 had jointly filed
compromise application, whereupon the learned
ASJ allowed the compromise under Section 323
r.w. 34 IPC but disallowed the compromise under
Sections 498-A and 377 IPC and 3 and 4 DP Act on
MCRC No.10003/2017
Hem Singh alias Chotu Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Anr.

the ground that offences under the aforesaid
Sections are non-compoundable. Hence, this
petition.

3. Before this court, the petitioners and
respondent No. 2 filed compromise application
being IA No. 6976/2017. Upon the order of this
Court, the Principal Registrar examined the
petitioners and respondent No. 2 and submitted
verification report dated 27/09/2017. According to
the report, they have entered into compromise
voluntarily without any threats or coercion or
inducements. However, the offences under
Sections 498-A, 377 IPC and 3 and 4 DP Act are
non-compoundable.

4. In the cases of B.S. Joshi Vs. State of
Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Geeta Mehrotra and
another Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 and
Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others Vs. Babita
Raghuvanshi and others (2013) 4 SCC 58 the
Supreme Court has compounded the offences
under Section 498-A of the IPC with other
incidental offences holding that compounding of
the offences would lead to amicable settlement of
matrimonial disputes between the parties.

5. Further, in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court
MCRC No.10003/2017
Hem Singh alias Chotu Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Anr.

has laid down broad guidelines in para 61 of the
judgment for quashment of the F.I.R. and
subsequent criminal proceedings in exercise of
power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C by the High
Court.

6. In view of the above case-law on the
compromise arrived at between the petitioners and
respondent No.2, I hereby compound the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 and 4
DP Act invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction and
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., but
disallow the compounding of offence under Section
377 of the IPC with which petitioner No.1 Hem
Singh Bhagel is charged and facing trial
thereunder on the grounds that respondent No.2
Sonam has stated regarding the commission of
said offence by the petitioner No.1 in her evidence
before the trial Court, the case is at the defence
stage, and the offence is extremely reprehensible,
disgusting and against the dignity and respect of
the women as a class in general and against the
respondent No.2 in particular. Consequently, the
charges framed against petitioners No. 1 to 7
under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 and 4 of DP Act
are quashed with subsequent proceedings.
However, petitioner No.1 Hem Singh Bhagel shall
MCRC No.10003/2017
Hem Singh alias Chotu Ors. Vs. State of M.P. Anr.

face the trial in the case under Section 377 IPC.

7. A copy of this order be sent to the aforesaid
court for information and compliance without
delay.

8. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed in
the aforestated terms.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Mahajan)
van Judge

VANDANA

Digitally signed by VANDANA VERMA
DN: cIN, oHIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH
GWALIOR, ouP.S., postalCode474011,
stMadhya Pradesh,

VERMA
2.5.4.2028633918296af0b3fa82b31b23b0847972
8746dc68b10fd53e8bb396b58dcf57,
cnVANDANA VERMA
Date: 2017.11.17 18:37:52 +05’30’

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *