Michhu vs State of M.P.

Sushil Kumar Gupta, J.—Heard.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the criminal proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No. 69/2014, which is pending in the Court of Special Sessions Judge (Atrocities) Gwalior.

As per prosecution case, the complainant-respondent no. 2 has lodged the report that at about 11:00 he was sitting near the Madiya of Gariba at Prem Nagar Colony and counting the amount received by him, at that time Sanjay Rawat and the applicant came and told him to give Rs. 500/- and when he denied, they abused him and when he told why they abused him, then Sanjay gave a Sariya blow which hit on his back and blood oozing from the wound and thereafter applicant gave a danda blow which hit on left knee and thereafter the son of Jagdish Rawat also gave a danda blow, which hit on left hand, at that time Chhaviram, Balwant and wife of the complainant came and intervened, thereafter they flee away. On the report, a FIR at Crime No. 753/2013 under Sections 294, 323, 506-B and 34 of IPC has been registered against the petitioners.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that parties have settled their dispute and filed application (I.A.No. 9330/2014) under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. for compromise.

From the perusal of the record, it appears that contents of the aforesaid application has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court. The Principal Registrar in its report has submitted that respondent No. 2-Gopal Singh has arrived at compromise voluntarily without any fear or force.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Shiji alias Pappu and others (2011) 10 SCC 705, has observed in para 17 and 18 as under :

"17. It is manifest that simply because an offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. is by itself no reason for the High Court to refuse exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.. That power can in our opinion be exercised in case where there is no chance of recording a conviction against the accused and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility. There is a subtle distinction between compounding of offences by the parties before the trial court or in appeal on the one hand and the exercise of power by the High Court to quash the prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the other. While a court trying an accused or hearing an appeal against conviction, may not be competent to permit compounding of an offence based on a settlement arrived at between the parties in cases where the offences are not compoundable under Section 320, the High Court may quash the prosecution even in case where the offences with which the accused stand charged are non- compoundable. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not for that purpose controlled by Section 320 Cr.P.C.

Having said so, we must hasten to add that the plenitude of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself, makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution. The width and the nature of the power itself demands that its exercise is sparing and only cases where the High Court is, for reasons to be recorded, of the clear view that continuance of the prosecution would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is neither necessary nor proper for us to enumerate the situations in which the exercise of power under Section 482 may be justified. All that we need to say is that the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. The High Court may be justified in declining interference if it is called upon to appreciate evidence for it cannot assume the role of and appellate court while dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Subject to the above, the High Court will have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether it is a fit case in which the inherent powers may be invoked."

Considering that parties have settled their dispute, there is no likelihood of recording a conviction against the petitioner, his trial would be a futile exercise and continuance of it would tantamount to abuse of process of law and also the decision of the Apex Court in Shiji alias Pappu (supra), this petition deserves to be allowed.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered against the petitioner under Sections 294, 323, 506-B and 34 of IPC at Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior and its subsequent criminal proceedings i.e. Special Sessions Trial No. 69/2014 Gwalior are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner.