Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Monu @ Ranu Kushwah and others v. State of M.P. and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.11891 of 2016 (Gwalior);
Decided on 30.11.2016.
Held : Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the application for quashing of the FIR in Crime No.10/2016 registered by Police Station AJAK, District Datia on the ground that the parties have compromised, cannot be allowed. Hence, the application is dismissed. (2014)6 SCC 466, (2012)10 SCC 303 and 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 469 followed.
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.482 and 320(2) -- application filed under for compromise -- offences as specified under can be compounded with permission of Court before which any prosecution for such offences is pending -- but in this case no case pending before this Court -- application for compromise not maintainable.
Held : Further the applicants have filed an application under section 320(2) of CrPC for compromise. The offences as specified in section 320(2) of CrPC, can be compounded with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offences is pending. Admittedly in the present case, even investigation is not complete and no charge sheet has been filed. No case is pending before this Court, therefore, the application under section 320(2) of CrPC is otherwise not maintainable. [Para 21
(3) Constitution of India -- Arts.15, 17 and 35(a) -- Act, 1989 is special statute which enacted with specific purpose of protecting dignity, integrity -- as well as rights of members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes -- offences committed by applicants are against society not of individual in nature.
Held : Thus, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is a special statute which has been enacted with the specific purpose of protecting the dignity, integrity as well as the rights of the members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. [Para 14
¼1½ vuqlwfpr tkfr;k¡ vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr;k¡ ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1989 & /kkjk 3¼1½¼n½] 3¼1½¼?k½ rFkk 3¼1½¼c½ & naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 rFkk 320¼2½ & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 451] 323] 294] 506 rFkk 354@34 & ds v/khu vijk/k & izFke bfryk fjiksVZ vfHk[kafMr djus ;kfpdk & ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd vihykFkhZx.k }kjk dkfjr fd, x, vijk/k O;fDrxr izd`fr ds Fks rFkk lekt ds fo:} ugha Fks & U;k;ky; vijk/k dh izd`fr rFkk xaHkhjrk ij fopkj djus ds fy, nkf;Rok/khu gS & iajrq ;g vf/kfu;e 1989 ds v/khu nafMr vijk/kksa ij ykxw ugha fd;k tk ldrk & le>kSrk ds fy, vkosnu eatwj ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ;kfpdk [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fopkj djus ij] bl U;k;ky; dh ;g jk; gS fd iqfyl Fkkuk vtkd ftyk nfr;k }kjk jftLVMZ vijk/k dz- 10@2016 esa izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dks vfHk[kafMr djus gsrq vkosnu bl vk/kkj ij fd i{kdkjx.k le>kSrk dj pqds] eatwj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA blfy, vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA ¼2014½ 6 ,l lh lh 466] ¼2012½ 10 ,l lh lh 303 rFkk 1995 lIyh- ¼4½ ,l lh lh 469 vuqlfjrA
¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 rFkk 320¼2½ & le>kSrk ds fy, mica/k ds v/khu vkosnu izLrqr & vijk/k tks mica/kksa ds v/khu fofufnZ"V gS U;k;ky; dh vuqKk ls le>kSrk fd;k tk ldrk gS ftlds le{k ,sls vijk/kksa ds fy, dksbZ vfHk;kstu yafcr gS & ijarq bl ekeys esa bl U;k;ky; ds le{k dksbZ ekeyk yafcr ugha & le>kSrk ds fy, vkosnu iks"k.kh; ughaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vkxs vkosndx.k naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 320¼2½ ds v/khu le>kSrk ds fy, vkosnu izLrqr dj pqds ml U;k;ky; dh vuqKk ls iz'keu fd;k tk ldrk gS ftlds le{k ,sls vijk/kksa ds fy, dksbZ Hkh vfHk;kstu yafcr gSA Lohd`r :i ls bl ekeys esa tk¡p Hkh iw.kZ ugha gS rFkk dksbZ vkjksi&i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA bl U;k;ky; ds le{k dksbZ ekeyk yafcr ugha gSA blfy, naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 320¼2½ ds v/khu vkosnu vU;Fkk iks"k.kh; ugha gSA
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 15] 17 rFkk 35¼d½ & vf/kfu;e] 1989 fo'ks"k dkuwu gS tks fd xfjek] v[kaMrk dh j{kk djus ds lkFk&lkFk vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ;k vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ds lnL;ksa ds vf/kdkjksa dh j{kk djus ds fofufnZ"V iz;kstu ds fy, vf/kfu;fer fd;k x;k & vkosndx.k }kjk dkfjr vijk/k lekt ds fo:} gS O;fDrxr izd`fr dk ughaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl izdkj] vuqlwfpr tkfr;k¡ vkSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr;k¡ ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1989 ,d fo'ks"k dkuwu gS tks fd vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ;k vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ds lnL;ksa dh xfjek] v[kaMrk ds lkFk&lkFk vf/kdkjksa dh j{kk djus ds fofufnZ"V iz;kstu ds fy, vf/kfu;fer fd;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk 14½
1. This is an application under section 482 of CrPC for quashing the FIR in Crime No.10/2016 registered under sections 451,323,294,506,354/34 of IPC and under sections 3(1)(r),3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the ground that the parties have resolved their dispute and have compromised.
2. The counsel for the applicants submit that a FIR was lodged on 6.9.2016 at 17:15 by the respondent No.2 alleging that she has taken half of the agricultural field of Ram Singh Kushwaha on “batai” and has cultivated groundnuts and the remaining half of the field has been taken by the applicant No.3 on “batai”. About 3 to 4 days prior to the date of incident, the cow of the applicant no.3 had entered in the field of the complainant and the complainant had objected to applicant No.3. On this issue, yesterday at about 5 in the evening, the applicants went to the house of the complainant and abused her and said that “adiwasin” how could you oust the cow of the applicant No.3 from the field. When she requested them not to abuse, all the three started assaulting her by fist and blows and with evil intentions they caught hold her hand and started pulling her towards them. In the meanwhile, her husband Balwant also came there to save her who was also beaten by the applicants. Thereafter, they were saved by her uncle Thakur Das Adiwasi. While going back, the applicants extended threat to their life in case they lodge any FIR. On these allegations, the police registered offence under sections 451,323,294,506,354/34 of IPC and under sections 3(1)(r),3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that since the parties have resolved their dispute and have compromised, therefore, the FIR be quashed on that ground only. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the applicants has relied upon the order dated 15.6.2016 passed in the case of Subodh v. State of M.P and others [Miscellaneous Criminal Case 3837/2016], order dated 14.9.2016 passed in the case of Arvind Singh Sikarwar and others v. State of M.P and others [Miscellaneous Criminal Case 7217/2016], order dated 14.9.2016 passed in the case of Shishupal Yadav and others v. State of M.P and others [Miscellaneous Criminal Case 9405/2016], order dated 26.9.2016], passed in the case of Gaurav Nagar v. State of M.P. and others [Miscellaneous Criminal Case 1805/2016], order dated 28.11.2016 passed in the case of Himanshu Gupta v. State of M.P and others [Miscellaneous Criminal Case 10283/2016], and order dated 28.11.2016 passed in the case of Suryabhan Singh v. State of M.P and others [Miscellaneous Criminal Case 10832/2016].
4. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent No.1/State submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of allegations, the proceedings may not be quashed on the ground of compromise.
5. Considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Narendra Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, reported in (2014)6 SCC 466, has held as under :
“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. Howev
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
