Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/414/2024 of ANKIT PAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAVON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 414 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ANKIT PAL S/O SHRI RAJENDRA PAL, AGED ABOUT 23YEARS, RAILWAY STATION KE PAAS DISTRICT DATIA(MADHYA PRADESH)
(MR. SHEESHU YADAV - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGEPOLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE STATIONINDARGARH DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYAPRADESH)POLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE STATIONINDARGARH DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.A B H I O K TR I THROUGH POLICE STATIONIDNERGARH, DATIA DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. KALPANA PARMAR - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 -STATE AND MS. MADHU SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTNO. 2 - PROSECUTRIX)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
4
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
B y invoking inherent power of this Court, present petition has beenpreferred by petitioner u/S.482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR bearingCrime No.215/2022 registered at Police Station Indergarh, District Datia (M.P.)for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 3/4 ofPOCSO Act and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom onthe basis of compromise.
Alongwith the petition, both the parties have filed IA No.155/2024, statingtherein that the petitioner/accused and respondent no.2/prosecutrix havesolemnized the marriage with each other and one baby has also been born fromtheir wedlock, therefore, they do not want to pursue the matter further.
In compliance of order dated 08.1.2024 passed by this Court, the factumof compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, whohas recorded the statements of prosecutrix - respondent No. 2 as well as thepetitioner - Ankit Pal and has submitted the report that the parties have arrivedat compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record.
In the cases of Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana &another (AIR 2008 SC 1968), Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab(AIR 2008 SC 1969), Shiji Vs. Radhika & Another (2011) 10 SCC 705,and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466,Supreme Court has laid down that even in non-compoundable cases on thebasis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuabletime of the Court can be saved and utilised in other material cases.
In view of the above as well as keeping in view the fact that the petitionerand respondent no.2 have married with each other and one baby has also beenborn from their wedlock, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR as no usefulpurpose would be served in prosecuting petitioner any further.
Consequently, this Court allows this MCRC with the followingdirection:-
1. FIR dated 21.6.2022 bearing Crime No.215/2022registered at Police Station Indergarh, District Datia (M.P.)for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC
and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act is hereby quashed.
2. All the consequential proceedings flowing out of the saidFIR also stand quashed.
It is made clear that the instant FIR is being quashed only keepingin view the facts and circumstances of the present case and this ordercannot be taken as a precedent on the power of High Court to exerciseits jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash an offence undersection 376 of IPC on the ground that the victim and the accused haveentered into a compromise.
With aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.
No order as to cost.
(SUNITA YADAV)JUDGEAKS