Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar Inawati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 MCRC-32124-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 32124 of 2024
RAMKUMAR INAWATI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Singh Ghuraiya - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sundaram - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Jitendra Kumar Maurya - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
With consent heard finally.
1. The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner
seeking quashment of FIR registered at Police Station Daboh, District Bhind vide
Crime No.108/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471
of IPC and other consequential proceedings bearing S.T.No.22/2021 pending before
the trial Court.
2. It appears that parties agreed to settle the matter and therefore, applications vide
I.A.No.15244/2024 and I.A. No.15245/2024 have been preferred at the instance of
parties and they want to settle the matter. Applications are duly signed by respective
parties and same are supported by their affidavits.
3. The Principal Registrar of this Court has duly verified the parties, contents of
applications, intent and signatures of parties. Report is attached, same is perused and it
appears that compromise has been reached between the parties voluntarily without any
threat, inducement and coercion.
4 . Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State opposed the prayer and prayed for
2 MCRC-32124-2024
rejection of the petition.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued in support of petitioners' prayer for
compromise. He submits that entire amount has already been received by him. He
referred affidavit filed by the complainant and is ready to settle the matter once and for
all.
6 . Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended
thereto.
7. A Lean Compromise is better than a Fat Law Suit, instant efforts of the parties
indicate the same. It is expected that their bonafide gestures would continue.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments 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.
9 . After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the law laid
down by the Apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, continuance of trial in such
matter will be a futile exercise which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation,
Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law
and wasteful exercise by the courts below.
10. Thus, in the interest of justice, application for compounding the offence vide
I.A.No.15244/2024 and I.A. No.15245/2024 are allowed because no fruitful purpose
would be served in continuation of trial. Thus, parties are permitted to compound the
3 MCRC-32124-2024
offences.
11. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. FIR registered at Crime No.108/2019 at Police
Station Daboh, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Section 420, 409, 467,
468, 471 of IPC and proceedings of S.T. No.22/2021 pending before the trial Court
against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
12. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
13. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.
14. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Van
