Mudasshar Khan vs Smt. Bilkis Khan

This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the proceeding registered against the applicants, vide Crime No. 524 of 2009 at Police Station, Itarshi, district Hoshangabad for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of IPC.

In the present proceeding both the parties, i.e. the applicants and the complainant- respondent no. 2 filed I.A. No. 485 of 17 an application for compromise and IA No. 486 of 17, an application for grant permission to compound the offence.

This court vide order dated 08.02.2017 directed the Registrar (J) to record the compromise who recorded the compromise in the note sheet and observed as under:- M.Cr.C.No. 3212/2010 The matter pertains to verification of compromise in M.Cr.C. No. 3212/2010. In compliance of order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Hon''ble Court, the Case is listed today i.e. 23.02.2017 for verification of compromise:-

Applicant/Accused No.1- Manjesh Mishra, S/o Shri Madan Prasad Mishra.

Applicant/Accused No.2 - Smt. Samidha Mishra, W/o Manjesh Mishra

Applicant/Accused No.3 - Madan Prasad Mishra, S/o Shri Shankar Prasad Mishra.

Applicant/Accused No.4 - Smt. Sarla Mishra, W/o Madan Prasad Mishra.

Applicant/Accused No.5 - Neelesh Mishra, S/o Madan Prasad Mishra.

Applicant/Accused No.6 - Smt. Lata Pandey, W/o Ashok Pandey.

All are residents of Near Ganesh Mandir, Ganesh Talai, Khandwa District Khandwa. Applicant/Accused No.7 - Smt. Ritu Jain, W/o Rajesh Jain, R/o Maisana (Gujrat). and Complainant/Respondent No.2 - Smt. Shiva Mishra, W/o Neelesh Mishra,, R/o Malviya Ganj, Itarsi, Teh. Itarsi, District Hoshangabad, M.P. appeared before me.

Applicant/Accused persons are identified by Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate (Enrl. No.1188/1997).

Complainant/Respondent No. 2 is identified by Shri Brindawan Tiwari, Advocate (Enrl. No.644/2002) who has filed power today itself i.e, 23.02.2017. have submitted the copy of Aadhar Card and No. 2 has submitted the copy of PAN Card for their identification.

Complainant/Respondent No. 2 has submitted the copy of Aadhar Card for their identification.

It is worth mentioning here that the Applicant/Accused No.7 Smt. Ritu Jain, W/o Rajesh Jain, has submitted the copy of Aadhar Card wherein her name is mentioned as Rakhi Jain, on questioning about the name she told that Ritu Jain is her nick name and officialy she known as Rakhi Jain this name is mentioned in the Aadhaar Card. Kind attention is invited to the fact that it is worth mentioning here that the Complainant/Respondent No.2 Shiva Mishra has submitted the copy of Aadhar Card wherein her name is mentioned as Shiva Awasthy. After marriage, she is now Shiva Mishra. At the preparation of Aadhar Card she was maiden.

Both the Applicant/Accused persons and Complainant/Respondent No.2 have jointly filed applications for compromise i.e. I.A. No. 485/2017 and 486/2017.

Both parties i.e., Applicant/Accused persons and Complainant/Respondent No.2 mentioned above have submitted that, now they have resolved their disputes voluntarily and by free consent. They have also expressed in clear unequivocal terms that now, there is peace between them and their disputes have also been resolved.

Complainant/Respondent No.2 had lodged the complaint against the accused persons namely Manjesh Mishra, Smt. Samidha Mishra, Madan Prasad Mishra, Smt. Sarla Mishra, Neelesh Mishra, Smt. Lata Pandey and Smt. Ritu Jain at P.S., Itarsi, District Hoshangabad U/s 498-A, 323/34 of I.P.C. and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No. 524/2009 dated 16.09.2009.

This M.Cr.C. has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet and proceeding which is pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Itarsi vide Criminal Case No. 1266/09.

Kind attention is invited to the fact that 498-A and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are non- compoundable.

I personally posed questions to the complainant to verify the voluntariness of the proposed compromise. Complainant has expressed that she has voluntarily entered into a compromise with the Applicants/Accused persons to settle their disputes. Applicant No. 5 and Complainant No. 2 are living separately. I satisfied myself about the fact that complainant did not appear to be under any threat, inducement, force or pressure in entering into a compromise as proposed. The parties appeared before me and submitted that they have amicably resolved the disputes between themselves and now their matter stands fully and finally settled. Therefore, the proposed compromise stands verified. In the light of the aforesaid factual position, it is clear that the complainant and the applicants have compromised voluntarily with free consent and without any undue influence, threat, coercion, force or pressure. The case be placed before the Hon''ble Court.

The Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) SCC 466 held as under in regard to powers of the court to permit the parties to compound the offence :- 32. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by that factor alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High Court''s approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter, some other attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in mind which compel us to take a different view.

We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., "respectable persons have been trying for a compromise uptill now, which could not be finalized". This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order accordingly.

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court the criminal proceeding registered against the applicants vide Crime No. 524 of 2009 at Police Station, Itarshi, district Hoshangabad for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of IPC, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, District Hoshangad, vide Cr. Case No. 1266 of 2009, (State Vs. Manjesh Mishra and six others) is hereby quashed.

This petition stands allowed.