Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/2148/2024 of NEERAJ BAGHEL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAKON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 2148 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1.NEERAJ BAGHEL S/O SHRI NATHURAM BAGHEL,AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O GRAMSUNDARPURA THANA LAHAR DISTRICT BHINDMP (MADHYA PRADESH)AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O GRAMSUNDARPURA THANA LAHAR DISTRICT BHINDMP (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.HIMMAT BAGHEL S/O NATHURAM BAGHEL,AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURATHANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURATHANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)
3.NATHURAM BAGHEL S/O FUSU BAGHEL, AGEDABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURATHANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURATHANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)
4.DINESH BAGHEL S/O FUSU BAGHEL, AGED ABOUT34 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURA THANALAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)34 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURA THANALAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.MANOJ BAGHEL S/O MANNULAL BAGHEL, AGEDABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURATHANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURATHANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)
6.RAJESH BAGHEL S/O MANNULAL BAGHEL, AGEDABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURATHANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURATHANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)
(BY SHRI PRADEEP KATARE- ADVOCATE)
.....APPLICANT
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPOLICE THANA LAHAR DISTRICT BHIND MP(MADHYA PRADESH)POLICE THANA LAHAR DISTRICT BHIND MP(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.VISHAMBHAR DAYAL S/O MAHADEVCHOURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O GRAMSUNDARPURA THANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND(MADHYA PRADESH)CHOURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O GRAMSUNDARPURA THANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.AMREESH S/O VISHAMBHAR DAYALCHOURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O GRAMSUNDARPURA THANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND(MADHYA PRADESH)CHOURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O GRAMSUNDARPURA THANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND(MADHYA PRADESH)
4.VIMLESH KUMAR S/O VISHAMBHAR DAYAL,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURATHANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURATHANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)
5.RAJESH KUMAR S/O VISHAMBHAR DAYAL, AGEDABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURATHANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURATHANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYAPRADESH)
6.AKHILESH S/O VISHAMBHAR DAYALCHOURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GRAMSUNDARPURA THANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND(MADHYA PRADESH)CHOURASIYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GRAMSUNDARPURA THANA LAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND(MADHYA PRADESH)
7.MITHLESH KUMAR S/O SHRIVISHAMBHARDAYAL CHOURASIYA, AGED ABOUT40 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURA THANALAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)VISHAMBHARDAYAL CHOURASIYA, AGED ABOUT40 YEARS, R/O GRAM SUNDARPURA THANALAHAR, DISTRICT BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJEEV UPADHYAY- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FORRESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)(SHRI ASHIRVAD DWIVEDI- ADVOCATE FORRESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
With consent heard finally.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
7
Decisions referred to
In this index
5
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
1. The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed bythe petitioners seeking quashment of FIR registered at Police Station Lahar,District Bhind vide Crime No.130/2020 for the offence punishable underSections 323, 324, 294, 506, 34 and 325 of IPC as well as entire proceedings arising out of it.
2 . It appears that parties agreed to settle the matter and therefore,applications vide I.A.No.960/2024 and I.A. No.961/2024 have been preferredat the instance of parties and they want to settle the matter. Application is dulysigned by respective parties and same is supported by their affidavits.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that initially case
was registered under Sections 323, 324, 294, 506, 34 and 325 of IPC. Later on,through medical report, it was found that one of the fingers of the victim wasfractured due to lathi blow by one of the accused persons, therefore, offenceunder Section 325 was added at time of filing of charge-sheet.
4 . The Principal Registrar of this Court has duly verified the parties,contents of application, intent and signatures of parties. Report is attached,same is perused and it appears that compromise has been reached between theparties voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.
5 . Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State opposed theprayer and prayed for rejection of the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant argued in support of petitioners'prayer for compromise. He referred affidavit filed by the complainant and isready to settle the matter once and for all.
7 . Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused thedocuments appended thereto.
8. A Lean Compromise is better than a Fat Law Suit, instant effortsof the parties indicate the same. It is expected that their bonafide gestures wouldcontinue.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments 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, Narinder Singh & others Vs. State ofPunjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryanaand another (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, laiddown that even in non-compoundable cases on the basis of compromise,criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can besaved and utilized in other material cases.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into accountthe law laid down by the Apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, continuanceof trial in such matter will be a futile exercise which will serve no purpose.Under such a situation, Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked toprevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful exercise by the courts below.
11. To preserve the resources and bonhomie created between the partiesarises out of settlement, in the interest of justice, applications for compoundingthe offence vide I.A.No.960/2024 and I.A. No.961/2024 are allowed becauseno fruitful purpose would be served in continuation of trial. Thus, parties arepermitted to compound the offences.
12. At this juncture, learned counsel for the parties submit that partieshave regret for the proceedings undertaken involving the state machinery(Police, Prosecution and the Court) and for that they intend to do somenational/social service by way of depositing Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two ThousandOnly), Rs.1000/- each, in favour of Juvenile Justice Fund having SavingBank Account No.60411029562 of Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Govindpura, Bhopal, IFSC Code [REDACTED] (a statutory fundcreated for the welfare of juveniles).
13. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. FIR registered at CrimeNo.130/2020 at Police Station Lahar, District Bhind for the offence punishableunder Sections 323, 324, 294, 506, 34 and 325 of IPC as well as entireproceedings in furtherance thereto, if any, are hereby quashed as per thecompromise arrived between the parties.
14. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
15. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned forcompliance.
16. Certified copy as per rules.
Vishal
(ANAND PATHAK)JUDGE