Ramkhiladi And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another

Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 482 of CrPC, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing First

Information Report concerning Crime No.271 of 2019 under Section 456, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC registered at PS Maharajpura District Gwalior.

Facts in nut-shell giving rise to the petition are that complainant/respondent no.2 lodged a report against the petitioners to the effect that on 4.6.2019 at

about 10 PM when her husband was not in the house, petitioners came and started hurling filthy abuses and when she restrained them, petitioner

Banwari slapped her. In the meantime, her husband also reached and tried to intervene, then they all beat him with kicks and fists. Hence, a case has

been registered against the petitioners for the offences mentioned above which is pending before the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and hence, filed I.A.No.4453 of 2019 under Section 320

of Cr.P.C stating therein that respondent no.2/complainant does not want to further prosecute the criminal case against the petitioners-accused. The

petition signed by both the parties, is supported by their affidavits with a prayer to quash the FIR as stated herein above. The compromise was verified

by the Registrar on 24.6.2019 stating that offences under Sections 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC are compoundable but offences under Sections 294 and

456 of the IPC are non-compoundable.

The counsel for the state formally opposed the prayer.

On perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that all the disputes were resolved mutually owing to which, the respondent no.2 does not want to

prosecute the petitioners. In such circumstances, there are bleak chances of conviction in this case. The continuation of the prosecution against the

petitioners would be mere abuse of the process of law in the instant case.

The Supreme Court in Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika & Another, 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 69, 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 under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 in para 61, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :

“61. 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 under Section 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 proceedingâ€​.

In this case, as the compromise between the complainant/respondent no.2 and the petitioners has been carried out, the possibility of conviction is

remote and bleak. Continuation of the criminal case would be futile exercise and would 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 and compromise is permitted even for the offences under Sections 294 and 456 also which are otherwise non-

compoundable.

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 petitioners/accused concerning Crime

No.271 of 2019 under Sections 456, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC registered at PS Maharajpura District Gwalior are ordered to be quashed.

This petition is disposed of accordingly.