Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 5th OF MAY, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13184 of 2021
Between:-
1. SUNIL S/O LATE SHRI KISHANLAL JI AGRAWAL
, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 34 VEDA COMPLEX, BHAWARKUA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHWETA W/O SHRI NARESH AGRAWAL , AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE 34
VEDA COMPLEX, BHAWARKUA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. AMIT AGRAWAL W/O SHRI SUNIL AGRWAL ,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS 413 AMBIKAPURI. EXTENTION AIR
PORT ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. NARESH AGRWAL W/O SHRI MOHANLAL
AGRAWAL , AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 3/1 SOUTH TUKOGANJ
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KAUSHAL SISODIAY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THR. P.S. MIG INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ARJUN S/O LATE SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH
THAKUR 39/2 PATINIPURA. INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, GA FOR STATE AND SHRI POURUSH
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
RANKA, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT )
Date: 2022.05.10
16:54:46 IST
This PETITION coming on for ADMISSION this day, but with
2
the consent of parties, heard finally and the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashment of FIR arising out of Crime No.143/2021 registered at
Police Station MIG Colony, Indore a under Section 420, 406, 467, 409,
468, 471 and 120-B of IPC as well as subsequent proceedings on the
basis of compromise between the parties.
As per the prosecution story, the allegations against the petitioner
are that they have committed fraued with father of of respondent no.2 to
the tune of Rs.55lacs regarding development of colony and given a
security cheque by Ms/ Agarwal as well as entered into an MOU by
given authority to father of respondent no.2 regarding Plot No.D/25 to
D/36. But. later on, father of respondent no.2 died on 29.09.2019.
Later on the complainant came to know that the petitioners have tried to
sold the plots to some other persons and also taken loan on the same
plots regarding which the MOU was executed between the petitioner
and father 0f the complainant. The allegations against the petitioners are
that they have committed the fraud with the complainant. Thereafter,
the complaint was lodged on the basis of a complainant made under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the parties
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.05.10
16:54:46 IST have entered into compromise and this petition has been filed on the
basis of the compromise for quashment of the FIR and subsequent
proceedings pending before the Court below.
An application was filed jointly by petitioners as well as
respondents No.2 seeking permission to compound the offences. Vide
order dated 07.04.2022, this Court had directed the parties to remain
present before Principal Registrar of this Court on 12.04.20221.
Thereafter, the Principal Registrar of this Court submitted the
following verification report dated 12.04.2022:-
''After verifying from Complainant/
Respondent No.2 and Accused/ Petitioner Nos. 1 to
4 that they have arrived at compromise amicably,
voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and
coercion."
According to Section 320 of Cr.P.C. the offence under Section
467, 406, 409, 468 and 471 of IPC are non-compoundable.''
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Now the question arise whether an offence under Sections 467,
406, 409, 468 and 471 of IPC, is it appropriate to quash proceedings
on the basis of compromise or not.
Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Anr. Vs. State of
Punjab and Anr., (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54 . In this case, Hon'ble Apex
Court in para 29 of the judgment laid down the guidelines on which the
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
High Court using the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 and
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.05.10
16:54:46 IST
quash the charges framed under non-compoundable offences. Taking
the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court under consideration. It is
apparent that the present dispute is regarding a business matter. It is
their personal dispute and society at large is not affected by the dispute.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 29.2 laid down two tests stating therein
that the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion
on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
Although, offenc under Section 467, 406, 409, 468 and 471 of
IPC cannot be allowed to be compounded but this is a peculiar case in
which the parties have alleged that they have compromised the case and
the complainant itself is not interested for further prosecution due the
said compromise. Hence, the FIR is required to be quashed.
This Court, in the case of Prafful Sharma And Others vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, passed in MCRC
No.53467/2021 decided on 04.01.2022 considered the similar issue in
which the the FIR has been quashed on the basis of compromise under
the non-compoundable offences.
After going into aforesaid consideration and after considering the
factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and the fact that
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.05.10
same has been verified and in view of the judgment passed in the case of
16:54:46 IST
Prafful Sharma (supra), I find that this is a fit case where the
extraordinary jurisdiction conferred of this Court may be exercised in
favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition is allowed
4. The FIR arising out of Crime No.143/2021 registered at
Police Station MIG Colony, Indore a under Section 420, 406, 467, 409,
468, 471 and 120-B of IPC as well as subsequent proceedings on the
basis of compromise between the parties, are hereby quashed. The
petitioners are discharged from offences aforesaid.
Certified Copy, as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.05.10
16:54:46 IST
