Rahul Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16458 MP

                            1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                          BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                 ON THE 6 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37122 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
1.    RAHUL GUPTA S/O SHRI JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA,
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
      GULAB BADI, JASWANT NAGAR          (UTTAR
      PRADESH)

2.    PRASHANT DUBY S/O SHRI RAMESH CHAND
      DUBY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      BUSINESS 31/3 VIBHAV NAGAR FIROZABAD
      (UTTAR PRADESH)

3.    KARAN SINGH S/O SHRI HARNARAYAN SINGH,
      AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
      GANESH GANJ PS KOTWALI URAI (UTTAR
      PRADESH)

4.    SOURABH JAISWAL S/O SHRI RAM GOPAL
      JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      BUSINESS 133/38 O-BLOCK KIDWAI NAGAR
      KANPUR (UTTAR PRADESH)

5.    AMIT DUBY S/O SHRI RAMESH CHAND DUBY,
      AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
      WORK 31/3 VIBHAV NAGAR FIROZABAD (UTTAR
      PRADESH)

6.    GOURAV JAISWAL S/O SHRI RAM GOPAL
      JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
      PRIVATE WORK 133/38 O-BLOCK KIDWAI NAGAR
      KANPUR (UTTAR PRADESH)

7.    SANJIV KUMAR S/O SHRI KAMLESH KUMAR,
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CLERK
      NEW TILAK NAGAR FIROZABAD (UTTAR
      PRADESH)

8.    GAGAN SHUKLA S/O LATE SHRI ASHOK SHUKLA,
      AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE
      WORK D3 SECTOR 46 VIL. JHADASA TEHSIL
      GURGAON (HARYANA)
                                   2

                                                                .....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI VIJAY DATT SHARMA AND SHRI J.P. KUSHWAH - ADVOCATES
FOR PETITIONERS)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
      SECRETARY VALLABH    BHAWAN,  BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE THE STATE OF
      MADHYA PRADESH DIST GWALIOR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    PS MORAR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PS
      MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    PS MORAR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PS
      MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    PS MORAR THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PS
      MORAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.    PUSHPENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN S/O SHRI
      HARDEV SINGH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: BUSINESS E BLOCK HOUSE NO 5
      ADITYPURAM GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIRAZ QURAISHI - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR
RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO3/STATE)
(BY SHRI NIRMAL SHARMA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 )

      This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

Petitioner No.7 - Sanjiv Kumar and respondent No.4 Pushpendra Singh Chauhan are present in person.

1. Petitioners and respondent No.4 have jointly preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.389/2019 under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of IPC registered at Police Station

Morar, District Gwalior.

2. A case was registered against petitioners as accused for offences referred above due to certain transactions as narrated in the FIR and referred in body of petition. However, it appears that good sense prevailed over the parties, and therefore, petitioners (accused) and respondent No.4 (complainant) filed joint petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for compounding of offence/compromise and quashment of FIR in furtherance thereof. Affidavits were filed by all petitioners as well as respondent No.4.

3. Matter was referred to Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of compromise vide order dated 6.9.2019 and on 16.09.2019 petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 7 were present for verification along with respondent No.4. However, all parties could not appear before the Principal Registrar on stipulated day. Therefore, vide order dated 12.02.2020, at the request of counsel for parties they were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court along with their respective counsel on 17.02.2020 for verification of compromise.

4. It appears that petitioners No. 4 and 6 appeared on 17.10.2019, therefore, their willingness as well as willingness of respondent No.4 was recorded on 17.10.2019.

5. In sum and substance, petitioners No. 1 to 7 and respondent No.4

all appeared before Principal Registrar of this Court and recorded their consent for settlement of the case. Petitioner No. 8 Gagan Shukla could not appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court.

6. Due to COVID - 19 Pandemic, matter kept pending for further orders.

7. Since matter was related to money transaction, therefore, in terms

of the judgments passed by Apex Court from time to time, matter could have been compounded invoking the extraordinary power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, matter could not be listed due to Covid - 19 Pandemic.

8. Thereafter, it appears that objections over the compromise application were filed on 21.06.2023(after four years of recording of compromise) vide document No.4796/2023 in which respondent No.4 on the basis of reasons assigned into the objections stated that he intends to raise objections over the compromise application as he is not ready to compromise the matter. An affidavit in support of said objection was filed along with vakalatnama of new counsel.

9. This created a peculiar situation. Matter was listed before this Court many a times. On 19.09.2023 respondent No. 4 was directed to remain present along with representative of the petitioners (petitioner No.7 - Sanjeev Kumar). On 21.09.2023 respondent No. 4 was present in person and sought some time to seek instructions.

10. Now today respondent No. 4 has filed an affidavit in which he mentioned the fact that dispute between petitioners No. 1 to 7 and respondent No.4 has been amicably resolved, and therefore, he has no objection if the litigation comes to an end because he does not want to continue litigation with petitioners No. 1 to 7.

11. Since respondent No. 4 is also present in person, therefore, this Court specifically asked about his intention. In reply thereof, he specifically admits that he intends to withdraw the litigation against petitioners No. 1 to 7 because matter is amicably resolved between petitioners and him. He does not want to pursue the litigation any more against them.

12. Heard the submissions and admissions.

13. Considering the earlier affidavit of respondent No.4, his deposition before the Principal Registrar of this Court and willingness of petitioners to settle the matter and personal undertaking given by respondent No. 4 today while appearing in person to settle the matter with petitioners, this Court intends to allow the petition preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. because "A Lean Compromise is always better than a Fat Law Suit". The settlement indicates such spirit.

14. Even otherwise, Supreme Court in plethora of judgments in the cases of Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana & another, AIR 2008 SC 1968, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji Vs. Radhika & Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641 , laid down that even in non-compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material cases.

15. Here matter pertains to monetary transaction only. Nothing less, nothing more. Petitioners have duly paid the amount to respondent No.4.

16. Considering the submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and legal position, this Court intends to allow the petition. Therefore, the petition is hereby allowed and FIR vide Crime No.389/2019 registered at Police Station Morar, District Gwalior for offences under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of IPC are hereby quashed in respect of petitioners No. 1 to 7. Petitioners No. 1 to

7 are set free.

17. The petition, accordingly, stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above in respect of petitioners No. 1 to 7 only. Petition is filed by total 8 petitioners in which petitioner No.8 namely Gangan Shukla has never appeared, neither before Principal Registrar of this Court to verify the factum of compromise nor he gave any instructions so far to his counsel Shri J.P. Kushwah.

18. Therefore, Shri J.P. Kushwah, learned counsel appearing for petitioner No.8 pleads no instruction so far as present petition is concerned and reserves his right to renew the prayer under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. invoking the jurisdiction of this Court in accordance with law.

19. Thus, petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and liberty given to petitioner No.8 Gagan Shukla as sought by him.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Van

VANDANA VERMA 2023.10.06 18:33:04 +05'30'