Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umesh Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2696
1 MCRC-4605-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4605 of 2025
UMESH PRAJAPATI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Naval Kishor Gupta - Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1/State.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, has been
filed for quashment of F.I.R. in Crime No.224/2023 registered at Police
Station Goraghat, District Datia (M.P.) for offences under Section 363, 366,
376 of IPC and under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.
2. Since prosecutrix was minor at the time of her kidnapping,
therefore, the offence is certainly a heinous one against society. It is
submitted by counsel for applicant that now the prosecutrix has married
applicant, therefore, the F.I.R. may be quashed on the ground of
compromise.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Others Vs.
State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held as under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 10-Feb-25
11:13:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2696
2 MCRC-4605-2025
:-
“29. 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:
29.1. 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.
29.2. 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.
29.3. Such a power is not to 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
the 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.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly 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.
29.5. 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.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of
heinous and serious offences and therefore are 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 10-Feb-25
11:13:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:2696
3 MCRC-4605-2025
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/delicate 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 latter
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.
29.7. 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 Code, as in such cases the trial
court would be in a position to decide the case finally on merits and
to come to 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”
5 . When the prosecutrix was kidnapped, admittedly, she was minor,
therefore, the matter cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise as theoffence committed by applicant with a minor girl was certainly a heinous one
and against the society. Accordingly, no case is made out for quashment ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 10-Feb-25
11:13:06 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:26964 MCRC-4605-2025
F.I.R. on the basis of compromise …….
6. At this stage, counsel for applicant seeks permission of this Court to
withdraw this application. It is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn .
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGEAK/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 10-Feb-25
11:13:06 AM
[ad_1]
Source link