Sheel Kumar vs The State of M.P.

THIS order shall govern disposal of M.Cr.C. Nos.2792 / 2015 and 4578/ 2015.

These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short "the Code". has been filed for quashment of criminal proceedings against the applicant pending before the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in ST No.633/2013.

Brief facts of this case are that on 10.09.2012 Pushpabai and Laxman wife and son of deceased Narayansingh filed a complaint to P.S. Hatod stating that applicant who is an Advocate entered into conspiracy with other co-accused persons and fraudulently got executed sale deed of Narayansingh''s land in the name of Shantabai, Shantilal, Rekha and Rajendra. Subsequently on the basis of forged sale deed they applied for mutation. When this fact was disclosed to the complainants they filed the complaint, on that basis Crime No.6/13 was registered at P.S. Hatod against the applicant and Shantibai, Shantilal, Rekha and Rajendra. After completing investigation final report has been filed against them under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. During pendency, an application for permission to compound the offence was filed by the complainants, which the learned ASJ on 09/03/2015, ordered that the application shall be considered at the time of judgment. Hence, the applicant filed the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. i.e. M.Cr.C. No.2792/2015 for quashment of the proceedings. Thereafter, the applicant filed petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and M.Cr.C. No.4578/2015 for quashment of proceedings on the ground that there is no material against the applicant to proceed with the trial.

During pendency of these petitions complainant

Pushpabai, Laxmansingh, Arti and Rajni filed the application for permission to compound the offence with the applicant and also filed an application for recording the compromise. The Principal Registrar gave a report dated 21.11.2016 that the complainants voluntarily wish to compound the offence with the applicant.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that complainants have voluntarily compound the offence with the applicant, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served to continue such proceeding against the applicant. When the offence is predominantingly civil flavor and the parties have mutually settled their dispute then the court exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of court even for an offence which is non-compoundable. For this purpose learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Chaturdas Baba V/s. State of M.P. reported in 2016 (3) M.P. Weekly Note 27 and judgement of Kerla High Court in the case of Philippose Philip V/s. Thomas George reported in 1952 Cr.L.J. 65 and judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Gyansingh V/s. State of Punjab, Jagdish Channa V/s. State of Hariyana reported in AIR 2008 SC 1968, State of Maharashtra through CBI V/s. Vikram Anantrai Doshi (Cr.A.No.2048/14) decided on 9th September,

Shri Dinesh Tiwari, learned Counsel for the complainant supports the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant and submits that the parties have entered into a settlement, therefore, continuance of criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility, hence, the petitions be allowed and proceedings be quashed against the applicant.

On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State as well as objector Rajendra opposes the prayer and submits that the applicant played an important role in committing the offence and offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC are non-compoundable offences. This is not the case in which the entire proceedings can be quashed as the complainants have settled the matter only with the applicant. In such circumstances, pray for dismissal of application as well as petitions.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, perused the record.

Firstly I would like to refer the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Vikram Anantrai Doshi (supra) held that :-

"the collective interest of which the Court is the guardian cannot be a silent or a mute spectator to allow the proceedings to be withdrawn, or for that matter yield to the ingenuous dexterity of the accused persons to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of the Code and quash the proceeding. It is not legally permissible. The Court is expected to be on guard to these kinds of adroit moves. The High Court, we humbly remind, should have dealt with the matter keeping in mind that in these kind of litigations the accused when perceives a tiny gleam of success, readily invokes the inherent jurisdiction for quashing of the criminal proceeding. The court''s principal duty, at that juncture, should be to scan the entire facts to find out the thrust of allegations and the crux of the settlement. It is the experience of the Judge comes to his aid and the said experience should be used with care, caution, circumspection and courageous prudence. As we find in the case at hand the learned Single Judge has not taken pains to scrutinize the entire conspectus of facts in proper perspective and quashed the criminal proceeding. The said quashment neither helps to secure the ends of justice nor does it prevent the abuse of the process of the Court nor can it be also said that as there is a settlement no evidence will come on record and there will be remote chance of conviction. Such a finding in our view would be difficult to record. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the social interest would be on peril and the prosecuting agency, in these circumstances, cannot be treated as an alien to the whose case. Ergo, we have no other option but to hold that the order of the High Court is wholly indefensible."

Keeping in view the dictum of Hon''ble Apex Court, I have scrutinized the entire facts in proper prospective. As per the prosecution case, the applicant, who is an Advocate entered into a conspiracy with other co-accused persons and fraudulently got executed sale-deed of Narayan Singh''s land. There are five accused persons including the applicant. It is difficult to separate the act of applicant with the other accused persons. It can not be said that there is no evidence against the applicant. In case the criminal proceedings in respect of applicant is quashed, then it will adversely affect the prosecution against other accused persons. The quashment neither helps to secure the ends of justice nor does it prevent the abuse of the process of Court. This is not a case in which the complainants have settled their dispute with all the accused persons. It is also to be noted that even if this petition is allowed, the proceedings against other accused persons shall be continued. The citations which are relied by learned Counsel for the applicant, are not helpful to him.

With the aforesaid, I am of the view that the applicant failed to make out a case for quashing the

proceedings against him.

Hence, the petitions are hereby dismissed.