Siddharth Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 November, 2017

1
M.Cr.C.No.6617/2016
(Siddharth Rai Ors. v. State of M.P.)

Jabalpur, Dated: 28.11.2017
Shri V.R. Daniel, counsel for the applicants.
Shri Aditya Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondent

No.1/State.

Shri Anubhav Jain, counsel for the respondent
No.2/complainant.

Applicant No.1 Siddharth Rai, Applicant No.2 Krishnakant
Rai and Applicant No.3 Archana Rai are present in person and
they have been identified by Shri V.R. Daniel, Advocate.

Applicant No.4 – Shuham Rai is absent.

Complainant – Smt. Priyanka is also present in person and
she has been identified by Shri Anubhav Jain, Advocate.

Heard finally with consent of the parties.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.898/2015, P.S., Kotwali,
District Tikamgarh for the offence under Sections 498A, 323,
506/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and
proceedings of Criminal Case No.2000848/2016 filed by the
police after investigation of that crime.

Brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of
respondent No.2 Crime No.898/2015 was registered for the
offence under Sections 498A, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act and after investigation of the crime, police
filed charge-sheet against the applicants No.1 to 4. On that charge-
sheet, Criminal Case No.2000848/2016 was registered against the
2
M.Cr.C.No.6617/2016
(Siddharth Rai Ors. v. State of M.P.)

applicants No.1 to 4 which is pending before Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Tikamgarh. For quashing that FIR and criminal
proceedings parties have entered into compromise and filed before
this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the
applicants have filed the compromise application in
Cr.R.No.2161/2016 and the same has been verified so the same
may kindly be considered in the present case.

From perusal of the record of Cr.R.No.2161/2016, it
appears that on 28.11.2017 this Court has directed the Registrar
(Judicial) to verify the factum of compromise and the Registrar (J-
II) in its report dated 28.11.2017 has stated that applicants and
respondent No.2 admitted that they have amicably settled their
dispute and applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 have filed
petition for obtaining decree of divorce under Section 13 of Hindu
Marriage Act by their mutual consent. It appears from the record
that it was a family dispute, which was amicably settled between
the parties. The offence under Section 323 506 of IPC is
compoundable.

Although, offence under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable but the law as laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of B.S.Joshi and others vs.
State of Haryana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 is
very clear that in matrimonial matters where the parties have
resolved their disputes amicably then it would be in the interest of
3
M.Cr.C.No.6617/2016
(Siddharth Rai Ors. v. State of M.P.)

justice to quash the proceedings of the trial with regard to Section
498-A of IPC. This view has been reiterated by the Bench of three
Judges of the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, in which it is
held that,

“The power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the
power given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Cases where
power to quash criminal proceedings may be
exercised where the parties have settled their dispute,
held, depends on facts and circumstances of each
case. Before exercise of inherent quashment power
under Section 482, High Court must have due regard
to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal
impact. Offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or
offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry
etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and parties have
resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash
criminal proceedings.”

The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex Court in
a recent judgment in Narinder Singh others V/s. State of
Punjab others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the pertinent
observations of the Apex Court in Narinder Singh (Supra) are 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
4
M.Cr.C.No.6617/2016
(Siddharth Rai Ors. v. State of M.P.)

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:

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.
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.

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.

On the other hand, those criminal cases having
5
M.Cr.C.No.6617/2016
(Siddharth Rai Ors. v. State of M.P.)

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.

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.
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. 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
6
M.Cr.C.No.6617/2016
(Siddharth Rai Ors. v. State of M.P.)

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.

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. Here
charge is proved under Section 307 IPC and
conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime
7
M.Cr.C.No.6617/2016
(Siddharth Rai Ors. v. State of M.P.)

and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a
convict found guilty of such a crime.”

In the light of the aforesaid compromise which is taken
place between the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion
that no useful purpose is going to be served by keeping the matter
pending especially when the grievance of the complainant has
been satisfied by the present applicants. Resultantly, the FIR at
Crime No.898/2015, P.S., Kotwali, District Tikamgarh for the
offence under Sections 498A, 323, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3/4
of Dowry Prohibition Act and proceedings of Criminal Case
No.2000848/2016 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Tikamgarh are hereby quashed.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Office is directed to enclose the copy of compromise
petition and applications in this petition also.

(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
Judge
(ra)

Digitally signed by RANJEET AHIRWAL
Date: 2017.11.29 10:17:58 +05’30’

Leave a Comment

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