M.Cr.C. No.39723/2019 1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.39723/2019
(SectionPayal Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh)
Indore, Dated: 15/10/2019
Shri Devdeep Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public
Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘The Code’) for
quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.224/2017 registered at
Police Station – Raoti, District Ratlam against applicant No.2-
Krishna @ Vikram for offence under Sections 363, Section366, Section376(2)
(i)(n), 506 of SectionIPC, 1860 read with Section 5/Section6 of Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the consequential
proceedings of S.C. No.150/2017 pending before the Special
Judge (POCSO Act), Ratlam.
02. Brief facts in nut shell are that on 23/09/2017, the
parents of the prosecutrix went to Ratlam for purchasing some
articles and the minor prosecutrix was alone in her house
situated at village Ranisingh. At about 1.00 pm, accused
Vikram S/o Nanda came to her house, enticed her on the pretext
of marriage and took her to his village and kept her in a hut
situated in the filed of Vikram, where he made sexual
relationship with her. The matter was reported to the Police
Station-Raoti, District Ratlam on the basis of which FIR
bearing Crime No.224/2017 for offence under Sections 363,
Section366, Section376(2)(i)(n) of IPC, 1860 read with Section 5/Section6 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was
Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 18/10/2019 15:48:53
M.Cr.C. No.39723/2019 2
registered and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet
was filed. Thereafter, learned Special Judge took cognizance
and the trial was proceeded against the applicant No.2.
03. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted
that the applicants were in love affair since some time and on
23/09/2017 they ran away from their respective homes fully
intending to get married. On 04/10/2017 they were
apprehended by Police and the applicant No.1 was handed over
to the custody of her parents, whereas the applicant No.2 was
arrested. It is further submitted that the applicant No.2/accused
was released on bail and the applicant no.1/prosecutrix
approached him for marrying her and to live with him as his
wife. After due consideration the parents of the applicant No.1
also agreed to accept their relationship and allowed their
marriage. On 07/01/2019 the applicants got married as per the
Hindu rites and rituals and since then they are living at their
matrimonial house at Ratlam. It is further submitted that both
the parties have filed this petition under Section 482 for
quashment of FIR as well as consequential proceedings pending
before the Special Court, Ratlam on the basis of compromise.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of this Court in
the case of SectionAjay vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in
M.Cr.C. No.11441/2018 in support of their contentions.
04. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application
by contending that the prosecutrix has already been examined
before the trial Court and the trial is in advance stage, therefore,
it will not be appropriate to quash the proceedings under
Section 482 of ‘The Code’ on the ground that settlement has
been taken place between the parties. In support of his
contentions, learned Public Prosecutrix relied upon the
Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 18/10/2019 15:48:53
M.Cr.C. No.39723/2019 3
judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
SectionNarinder Singh Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported
in (2014)6 SCC 466 and prayed for rejection of the present
petition.
05. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record. From the perusal of record it appears that
on the basis of complaint made by applicant No.1, FIR has been
registered against the applicant No.2/accused for the offence
under Sections 363, Section366. 376(2)(i)(n) of SectionIPC, 1860 read with
Section 5/Section6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 and charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court. The
charges were framed against the applicant No.2 on 24/01/2018.
The applicant No.1/prosecutrix and her father have been
examined on 09/02/2018 and thereafter, the case was fixed for
recording the remaining prosecution evidence on 10/03/2018.
The applicants have not filed the copy of the entire proceedings
of the trial Court to demonstrate the current status of the trial
even then it is clear that the evidence has already been started in
the month of February, 2018, therefore, now it will be in
advance stage.
06. In the case of Narinder Singh Ors.(Supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held 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 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 beDigitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 18/10/2019 15:48:53
M.Cr.C. No.39723/2019 4distinguished 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 SectionPrevention 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
Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 18/10/2019 15:48:53
M.Cr.C. No.39723/2019 5
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.
(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
Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 18/10/2019 15:48:53
M.Cr.C. No.39723/2019 6
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 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.”
07. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court it is clear that the offence, for which the
applicant No.2 is charged, will have an impact on society and is
against the moral turpitude. This offence is not private in
Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 18/10/2019 15:48:53
M.Cr.C. No.39723/2019 7
nature. Therefore, in the context of the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh Ors.
(Supra), the proceedings pending before the trial Court for the
aforesaid offence cannot be quashed on the basis of
compromise or settlement of the parties was arrived at. The
judgment of SectionAjay vs. The State of M.P. (Supra) relied upon by
the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable on the
facts because the aforesaid case was in initial stage and the
prosecutrix was not testified, whereas in the present case, the
prosecutrix and her father have already been examined and the
trial is in advanced stage.
08. Thus, on due consideration of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that at
this stage, FIR bearing Crime No.224/2017 registered at Police
Station – Raoti, District Ratlam against applicant No.2-Krishna
@ Vikram and the consequential proceedings of S.C.
No.150/2017 pending before the Special Judge (POCSO Act),
Ratlam cannot be quashed, invoking the powers under Section
482 of ‘The Code’.
09. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case
No.39723/2019 filed under Section 482 of ‘The Code’ is hereby
dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. K. AWASTHI)
JUDGE
sumathi
Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan
Date: 18/10/2019 15:48:53
