MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT GWALIOR
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.
Vikas Singh Parmar - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. And Another - Respondents
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 120 of 2020
Decided On : 18-02-2020
Section 336 - Quashing of FIR based on Compromise
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 196/2019 registered for the offence under Section 336 of the IPC on the basis of compromise between the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court verified the compromise and found that the offence under Section 336 of the IPC is not compoundable. However, considering the nature of the offence and the parties' resolution of their dispute, the court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Issues: Compounding of offence under Section 336 of the IPC based on compromise, nature of the offence, and applicability of Section 320 of CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. to quash the FIR based on the parties' compromise and the nature of the offence.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR registered against the applicant for the offence under Section 336 of the IPC, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed.
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 196/2019 registered at Police Station Pichhore, District Gwalior for offence under Section 336 of the IPC on the basis of compromise.
2. As per prosecution story, the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a FIR against the applicant on the ground that on 25/11/2019, his mother was engaged in some customary function at the sand mining place for which lease was granted to his mother, the present applicant fired a gunshot in the air. The police registered a case against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 336 of the IPC.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that respondent No. 2/complainant has entered into a compromise with the applicant and, therefore, the present petition has been filed for compounding the offence on the basis of compromise.
4. Along with the petition, an application (I.A. No. 18/2020) under Section 320 of CrPC has also been filed. The application is duly signed by both the parties and is supported by affidavits of respective parties.
5. In compliance of the order dated 21/1/2020 passed by this Court, the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, who has recorded statement of complainant/respondent No. 2 Jitendra Bohare S/o Shri Suresh Bohare as well as applicant/accused Vikas Singh Parmar S/o Shri Vijay Pal Singh Parmar and has submitted a report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion. The verification report further states that as per Section 320 CrPC, the offence under Section 336 of I.P.C. is not compoundable.
6. In the light of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2012 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2014 6 SCC 466 , and considering the fact that the parties have resolved their dispute as well as the nature of offence which cannot be said to be an offence against the society at large, FIR registered by Police Station Pichhore, District Gwalior against the applicant at Crime No. 196/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 336 of the IPC and all other consequential proceedings are hereby quashed.
7. Petition stands allowed accordingly.
AI
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.