M.Cr.C. No.51672/2019 1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.51672/2019
(Mukesh. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Anr.)
Indore, Dated:21/01/2020
Shri Jitendra Mandloi, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Ankit Khare, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent No.1/State.
None present for the respondent no.2.
ORDER
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, 498-A, 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.
02. Relevant facts, briefly stated, the marriage of the
applicant and respondent no.2 was solemnized on 04/07/2012
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 09/01/2013 respondent no.2
lodged a complaint at Police Station Mahila Thana, Indore. On
Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 23/01/2020 17:12:41
M.Cr.C. No.51672/2019 2
the basis of which FIR under Section 294, 498-A, 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.
03. During the pendency of the trial, the applicant filed
a case under Section 13(1)(1-A) (1-B) of Hindu Marriage Act
before the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Indore praying for a decree of divorce. By ex-parte order dated
18/01/2016 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 u/S 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, 498-
A of IPC, 1860 and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
on the ground that the same are not compoundable, hence the
present petition.
04. 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 F.I.R bearing Crime
No.002/2013, registered at police station – Mahila Thana, District –
Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 23/01/2020 17:12:41
M.Cr.C. No.51672/2019 3
Indore against the applicant for offence punishable under Sections
498-A, 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.
05. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
06. 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 05/01/2020 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 498-A of IPC, 1860 and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 are non-compoundable offences, however,
Hon’ble the apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab 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.”
07. The aforesaid dictum stands reiterated by the Apex
Court in the judgment of Narinder Singh Ors. vs. 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
Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 23/01/2020 17:12:41
M.Cr.C. No.51672/2019 4
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.
(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.
Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 23/01/2020 17:12:41
M.Cr.C. No.51672/2019 5
(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. 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
Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 23/01/2020 17:12:41
M.Cr.C. No.51672/2019 6
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.”
08. 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. More so, offence in question are not against
the society, but merely affect the victim.
09. 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 498-A,
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.
Certified copy as per Rules.
(S. K. AWASTHI)
Judge
sumathi
Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 23/01/2020 17:12:41
