Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(MP) 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
VISHAL MISHRA, J.
Mohar Singh and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. - Respondents
M. Cr. C. No. 7685 of 2021
Decided On : 17-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Rajmani Bansal, adv
For the Respondents: I.S. Ashtana, Learned Panel Lawyer and Neeraj Dhamnaya, Learned Counsel

The power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and in cases where the continuation of the criminal case would be an exercise in futility. The court also considered the nature and gravity of the crime and the impact on society before allowing the compounding of non-compoundable offences.

Headnote:
Compounding of Offences - Quashment of FIR - Sections 324, 323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC - [Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika & Another, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan, H. Ramanjini and others Vs. State of Karnataka] - The court discussed the compounding of non-compoundable offences under Sections 324, 326, and 294 of IPC, citing various judgments and legal provisions. It emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and in cases where the continuation of the criminal case would be an exercise in futility. The court also considered the nature and gravity of the crime and the impact on society before allowing the compounding of offences.
Fact of the Case:

The petition was filed seeking quashment of an FIR for offences under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506, and 34 of IPC, letter on enhanced Sec. 326 of IPC, based on a compromise entered into between the parties. The court considered the nature of the offences, the compromise between the parties, and the pending investigation.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the offences under Sections 324, 326, and 294 of IPC are non-compoundable, but the same can be compounded with the permission of the Court as the parties have already settled their dispute and facing the entire trial would be a futile exercise. The court also considered various judgments and legal provisions related to the compounding of non-compoundable offences.
Issues: The main issue was whether the non-compoundable offences under Sections 324, 326, and 294 of IPC could be compounded based on the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law and in cases where the continuation of the criminal case would be an exercise in futility. It also considered the nature and gravity of the crime and the impact on society before allowing the compounding of offences.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings flowing out of the said FIR for offences under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506, and 34 of IPC, letter on enhanced Sec. 326 of IPC, based on the compromise between the parties and the pending investigation.

ORDER :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of an FIR bearing Crime No. 749/2020 registered at Police Station Aron, District Guna for offences under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC, letter on enhanced Sec. 326 of IPC. The quashment has been sough on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.

2. During pendency of this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners and complainant-respondent No. 2 to 5 have filed an application jointly stating that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they are not inclined to pursue the matter anymore. By the rival parties, application has been filed on 05.02.2021 being IA No 4149/2021 jointly informing about parties having entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further.

3. It is alleged that the matter was listed on 10.02.2021 and this Court had directed for sending the matter for verification to the Principal Registrar of this Court. The statements were recorded and the report has been submitted by the Principal Registrar of this Court.

4. From perusal of the report it is seen that the offences under Sections 323, 506 and 34 of IPC are compoundable in nature, but offences under Sections 294 and 326 are not compoundable.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and others v. Radhika & Another, reported in 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 69 and has argued that if the offences are not heinous in nature and the parties are willing to compromise the matter, then looking to the fact that facing of entire trial will be futile exercise, the FIR should have been quashed.

6. It is argued that the larger Bench has considered the aspect in the case of Gian Singh (Supra) and has quashed the FIR for offences under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC, letter on enhanced Sec. 326 of IPC. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1969, in which offences under Section 406 has been compounded. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the certain order passed in M.Cr.C. No. 8955/2012 (Mukesh Narwariya and ors. Vs. Bansilal Jatav) vide order dated 03.12.2012, wherein, offences under Sections 294, 323 of IPC r/w Sec. 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act were quashed on the basis of compromise. Further in the case of Balveer Singh and ors. Vs. State of M.P. and ors. passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4862/2015 vide order dated 01.06.2015, wherein the FIR was quashed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties for the offences registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 452, 336, 323 and 506 of IPC.

7. It is argued that in the present case the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 294 of IPC are non compoundable, but the same can be compounded with the permission of the Court as the parties have already settled their dispute and facing of the entire trial will be a futile exercise. He has prayed for quashment of the FIR.

8. Counsel for the complainant has also stated that they do not want to continue with the proceedings of the FIR as they have already given their statements before the Principal Registrar regarding the compromise entered into between the parties.

9. Counsel for the State has submitted that the offences under Sections 323, 506 and 34 of IPC being compoundable in nature and the same can be quashed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties, but the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 294 of IPC being non-compoundable offences, therefore, the same cannot be compounded on the basis of compromise.

10. In this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court in latest pronouncement in Cr. Appeal No. 1090 of 2019 (Manjit Singh Vs. Sate of Punjab and Others) while dealing with the case of compromise