1 MCRC-22175-2018 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-22175-2018 (SHIVKUMAR DHAMOLE @ PAPPU @ VIJAYKUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR) Gwalior, Dated : 27-06-2018 None for the parties. Applicant- [ENTITY], complainant/respondent No.2- [ENTITY] and victims [ENTITY]
and Smt. [ENTITY] are also present in person.
An information has been sent by the Secretary, the High Court Bar Association, Gwalior to the Principal Registrar, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench Gwalior to the effect that the President, Vice President and some other members of the Bar were attacked by some miscreants, a result of which the lawyers are abstaining from work.
T hi s petition under [SECTION] of [ACT] has been filed for quashment of the FIR in [CASE NUMBER] registered at Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind for offence under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of [ACT].
T hi s Court in connected [CASE NUMBER] by order dated 04/06/2018 had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for the verification of factum of compromise.
The Principal Registrar of this Court has submitted the following report:-
Statement of Complainant/Respondent No.2 [ENTITY] and accused /petitioner [ENTITY] are recorded. Matter perused, inquired and heard as to factum of compromise.
After verifying from Complainant/ Respondent No.2 [ENTITY] he submits that he has compromised with only accused/petitioner [ENTITY] voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion.
According to [SECTION] of [ACT] the Offence U/[SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of [ACT] are compoundable. But [SECTION] of [ACT] is not compoundable. The Principal Registrar of this Court has specifically mentioned that [ENTITY] and Smt.[ENTITY] have neither appeared before him nor they have been made parties in this petition according to FIR.
Applicant- [ENTITY] has admitted that he has not been arrested so far.
According to the prosecution case, complainant [ENTITY] 2 MCRC-22175-2018 lodged a report on 01/04/2018 along with his son [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] to the effect that on 31/03/2018 at about 10:30 in the night, he was sitting outside his house along with his family members. At that time, the applicant and co-accused [ENTITY] came there. The co-
accused [ENTITY] was having 315 bore gun in his hand. The applicant and co-accused [ENTITY] started scolding the complainant/ respondent No.2 and alleged that why the complainant is not coming for labour works. When the complainant objected as to why they are abusing him, then applicant and co-accused [ENTITY] started assaulting by fists and blows. The co-accused [ENTITY] fired a gunshot, as a result of which his life came under danger. When his son [ENTITY] and his wife Smt. [ENTITY] tried to intervene in the matter, then both the accused persons assaulted them by fists and blows, as a result of which his son [ENTITY] and his wife Smt. [ENTITY] also sustained injuries. The incident was witnessed by [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
Since [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] did not appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court, therefore, this Court verified about the allegations made in the FIR. Initially, complainant [ENTITY] after looking at the applicant and co-accused [ENTITY], submitted that no incident had taken place. When it was inquired by this Court as to why a false report was lodged, then again looking at the applicant and co- accused [ENTITY], he replied that a gunshot was fired and he was abused, but again he resiled from his allegation that either he or his son or his wife were assaulted by fists and blows. When again it was inquired by this Court as to why the complainant has made a false allegation in the FIR that the applicant and co-accused [ENTITY] had assaulted them, then it was admitted by the complainant that in fact, the entire incident had taken place and FIR2 lodged by him is factually correct. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] have also stated the same thing. After noticing the demeanour of the complainant/ respondent No.2 as well as his son [ENTITY] and his wife Smt. [ENTITY], it is clear that the complainant has not voluntarily entered into a compromise. All the times, the complainant was either looking at the applicant or co-accused or he was looking towards the ground. In the present case, as admitted by the applicant, even he has not surrendered before the police, which clearly shows that immediately after the incident, the applicant and co- accused [ENTITY] must have pressurized the complainant and must have forced him to accept the compromise for quashment of criminal 3 MCRC-22175-2018 proceedings.
The Supreme Court in the cases of [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] has held that subject to gravity of offence the proceeding can be quashed on the basis of compromise, but if the offence is against the society, then the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.
In the present case, the allegations are that a gunshot was fired. The complainant and his family members were beaten only because of the fact that the complainant had not gone for labour works. Not only that, thereafter it appears that the applicant and co-accused [ENTITY] have pressurized the complainant to enter into a compromise even before the police could take action in the matter. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR in [CASE NUMBER] registered at Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind for offence under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of [ACT] cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.
Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE [ENTITY] 2018.06.28 12:19:00 +05'30'