Rahul Gupta and Another vs State of M.P.

M.K. Mudgal, J.—Heard on admission.

Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred u/s 482 of CrPC, the petitioners have filed this petition jointly for quashing First Information Report concerning Crime No. 99 of 2013 u/s 294 and 354 of IPC registered at PS Mahila Padav, District Gwalior.

Facts in nut-shell giving rise to the petition are that complainant/petitioner no. 2 Smt. Jagriti Kaushik filed a complaint to the effect that she purchased a flat in Green Park from M/s. Neoteric Constructions. At the time of purchasing the same, she was allotted particular parking lot, but subsequently, same was altered. It was alleged that when she went to make a complaint at the registered office, the petitioner no. 1-accused misbehaved with her and also tried to outrage her modesty. On her report, FIR concerning crime No. 99 of 2013 was registered at Mahila Thana Padav, District Gwalior for offence under sections 375-E and 376(1) of IPC which was challenged by the petitioner-accused by filing M.Cr.C. No. 8045 of 2013 before this court. The same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2013 modifying the offence triable u/s 294 and 354 of IPC, which is pending.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute which is civil in nature by allotting the parking lot to the petitioner no. 2-complainant as desired by her. The complainant-petitioner also does not want to further prosecute the criminal case against the petitioner-accused. Hence, this joint petition is being filed by the parties with a prayer to quash the FIR as stated herein above. The compromise petition was verified by the Registrar on 28.4.2014.

The counsel for the state formally opposed the prayer.

On perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the grievances of the petitioner no. 2 are personal in nature and all the disputes were resolved mutually owing to which, the petitioner no. 2 does not want to prosecute the petitioner no. 1. In such circumstances, there are bleak chances of conviction in this case. The continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner no. 1 would be mere abuse of the process of law in the instant case.

The Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika and Another, , it has been ruled that where there is no chance of recording conviction against the accused persons and the entire exercise of a trial is destined to be an exercise in futility, the criminal case registered against the accused persons though it may not be compoundable can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.

Further, in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under:

The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarized thus: 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 u/s 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim''s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. 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 proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding 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 the 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 proceeding.

In this case, as the compromise between the complainant/petitioner no. 2 and the offender petitioner no. 1 has been carried out, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. Continuation of the criminal case would be futile exercise and tantamount to abuse of process of law, despite settlement and compromise having been reached between the victim and the offenders. Considering the nature of offence and facts and circumstances of the case, the petition may be allowed.

In view of the foregoing and having regard to the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Shiji @ Pappu and Gian Singh (supra), the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner no. 1/accused concerning Crime No. 99 of 2013 u/s 294 and 354 of IPC registered at PS Mahila Padav, District Gwalior are ordered to be quashed.

This petition is disposed of accordingly.