Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prafful Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 January, 2022
Author: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava
1 MCRC-53467-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 53467 of 2021
(PRAFFUL SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Gwalior, Dated : 04-01-2022
Shri Atul Gupta, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rohit Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent No.1/ State.
Shri FA Shah, counsel for the respondent No. 2 and 3.
The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by
petitioners for quashment of FIR as well as other consequential criminal
proceedings initiated in connection with Crime No.325/2019 registered at
police station Padav, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 120-B r/w Section 34 of IPC, on the basis of
compromise.
In brief, the facts giving rise to present petition are that respondent
No.2 complainant lodged a report at police station Padav, District Gwalior
alleging therein that, on the false assurance given by petitioners, she along
with her husband (respondent No.3) had given Rs.54 lac to petitioners for
investment in Mines Business. Thereafter, it is alleged that complainant had
also given Rs.7 lacs for purchasing precious stones and given some
jewelleries worth Rs.9 lac.When the amount claimed by complainant along
with her husband was not returned back by petitioners, a forgery case has
been registered against them for the alleged offences, as stated above.
An application was filed jointly by petitioners as well as respondents
No.2 and 3 seeking permission to compound the offences. Vide order dated
24/11/202, this Court had directed the parties to remain present before
Principal Registrar of this Court on 06/12/2021. Thereafter, the Principal
Registrar of this Court submitted the following verification report:-
''After verifying from Complainant/ Respondent No.2 Smt.
Sukshma Sharma, No.3 Sanjay Sharma and Accused/ Petitioner
No. 1 to 4 that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily,
without any threat, inducement and coercion.
2 MCRC-53467-2021
According to Section 320 of Cr.P.C. the offence u/S. 406,
420 of IPC are compoundable. But u/S. 467, 468, 34 and Section
120-B of IPC are not compoundable.''
In the body of petition, it is stated that petitioners no.1 to 3 shall pay
consolidated amount of Rs. 39 lac to the respondents No. 2 and 3 including
Rs.11 lac in term of outstanding amount from Company Versha Ganga
Metals and Minerals Pvt.Ltd. Similarly, for the remaining amount of Rs.6 lac,
petitioner No.4 will get his Bank Guarantee liquidated and pay the same to the
respondents No.2 nd 3 after obtaining NOC from them. In support of
compromise application, affidavit of complainant and petitioners have been
filed separately. It is further stated that both the parties have amicably settled
their disputes in regard to repayment of Rs. 45 lacs.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that if the FIR
indicates a dispute between the complainant and accused which was of a
private nature and once the complainant has decided not to pursue the matter
further, then the High Court could have taken a mere pragmatic view of the
matter. The criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially
civil flavour, may in appropriate situation fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute and the criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis
of compromise even where non-compoundable offences are involved. In
support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgments of Supreme
Court passed in Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
and Another, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 677, Manoj Sharma vs. State
and Others, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 1, Gian Singh vs. State of
Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Ramgopal and
Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh vide judgment dated 29/09/2021
passed in CRA No.1489 of 2012 as well as the order passed by this Court
o n 29/07/2021 passed in MCRC No. 32097/2021 Sushil Shinde vs.
State of MP and Others].
3 MCRC-53467-2021
Counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 and 3/ complainant has no
objection to the prayer made by petitioners in regarding to quashment of FIR
as well as other consequential criminal proceedings.
In the light of the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the
above-stated cases as well as the order passed by this Court in the case of
Sushil Shinde (supra) and considering the fact that both the rival parties
have resolved their disputes as well as the nature of offence which cannot be
said to be an offence against the society at large, the FIR initiated in
connection with Crime No.325/2019 registered at police station Padav,
District Gwalior for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 120-B
read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed and petitioners are acquitted
from the charges levelled against them. If they are not required in any other
offence, they be released forthwith.
Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of in the light of
compromise.
Digitally signed by
MAHENDRA BARIK (RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA)
Date: 2022.01.05 16:30:07
+05'30'
JUDGE
MKB
