Nazim Ahmad vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of the FIR in Crime No.137/2017 registered by Police Station Sirol, District Gwalior as well as Criminal Case No.199/2018 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior.

The necessary facts for disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent no.2 has lodged a FIR on the allegation that she is running a coaching classes in the name and style of Vaishno Coaching, Sirol and, therefore, she goes to her coaching classes daily from Morar. On 21/9/2017 when she left Morar for going to Sirol, then at about 11:30 in the afternoon the applicant alongwith the other co-accused persons came on a motorcycle of black colour and blocked her way, as a result which, she fell down from her scooty. The applicant Nazim caught hold her hand with an evil intention and extended the threat to kill her. The co-accused person also caught hold of her with an evil intention and used abusive language and when she started shouting, then the applicant as well as the another co-accused went away on the motorcycle. It was further alleged that the motorcycle was being driven by the applicant. It was also mentioned in the FIR that earlier also the applicant and the another co-accused has harassed her and they used to stalk her. However, as she was afraid of these persons, therefore, she did not disclose the incident to anybody. Today in the morning when she disclosed the incident to her sister and brother-in-law, then she has come to lodge the FIR. It is mentioned in the application that the respondent no.2 has compromised the matter with the applicant. Today neither the counsel for the applicant has appeared nor the counsel for the respondent no.2 has appeared to press this application. Therefore, this application is being decided on the basis of the copy of the FIR filed alongwith this petition.

The Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, has held that if the offence is against the society, then the same should not be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others passed in Cr.A. No.349 of 2019 by judgment dated 5/3/2019 has held as under:-

"13. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under:

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

In the present case, the allegations are that the applicant as well as the other co-accused persons used to stalk respondent no.2. On the date of incident, they not only blocked her way, but as a result of which, she fell down from her scooty and the applicant and the co- accused persons caught hold her hand with an evil intention and used  abusive language and only after the respondent no.2 raised an alarm, they went away on the motorcycle and it is also specifically alleged that it was the applicant who was driving the motorcycle. Under these circumstances, where the allegations are that the girls are being stalked and they are being physically & sexually abused and if the society cannot provide a safe atmosphere for the girls to freely move in the society, then it is a matter of concern, which has to be taken note of very seriously. In the present case, since the incident is alleged to have taken place on a public road and in view of the specific allegation that earlier also the applicant used to harass the respondent no.2, this Court is of the considered opinion that the FIR as well as the criminal case registered against the applicant cannot be quashed on the ground of compromise.

Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.