1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.31627/2018 (Rinku and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Another) Gwalior, Dated:12/10/2018 Shri Neeraj Kumar Dhamaniya, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.
Shri Rajnish Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2- complainant.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR registered vide Crime No.66/2018 at Police Station Rithora, District-Morena against them on the complaint of respondent No.2- Bharat Singh under Sections 452, 323, 506, 294 and 34 of IPC as well as subsequent proceedings of the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners and the complainant/respondent No. 2-Bharat Singh have moved an application for compromise under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. vide I.A. No.6384/2018 before this Court. The application is duly signed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.2 and they submitted that they are ready to compromise the matter. The parties have appeared before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the factum of compromise and the Principal Registrar has given report dated 04/09/2018 regarding compromise, which is perused. Counsel for the parties have relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Jagdish Chanana & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr (2008) 4 SCC 511 and Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2008 (9) SCC 677 as well as of this Court in the matter of Umaprasad Shrivas and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Anr., 2013 Legal Eagle 2352 and Ramvati and Anr. Vs. Smt. Sadhana and Anr., 2016 (I) MPWN 159.
Both the parties submit that now there is no likelihood of any kind of dispute between them. Respondent No. 2-Bharat Singh submits that now he wishes that petitioners be exonerated and be not 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (Rinku and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Another) sent to jail.
In case of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another- (2003) 4 SCC 675 the Apex Court observed:
"The object of introducing Chapter XX-A in IPC is to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. A hyper technical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. This is not the object of Chapter XX-A of IPC."
In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that compromise between both the parties is real and genuine and without any undue influence and coercion. In view of the proposition laid down by the Apex Court, in the interest of parties to litigation, FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings of the case, if any, can be quashed.
In view of the settlement between the parties, this Court deem it appropriate to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to quash the FIR as well as consequential criminal proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioners. Accordingly, FIR registered vide Crime No.66/2018 at Police Station Rithora, District-Morena stand quashed.
Petition disposed of.
(Anand Pathak) Judge vc VARSHA CHATURVEDI 2018.10.24 16:07:20 -07'00'