Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umesh Singh Rajawat vs Anang Pal Singh on 3 May, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 3 rd OF MAY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 43658 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. UMESH SINGH RAJAWAT S/O SHRI KAMAL SINGH
RAJAWAT, AGED 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PROPERTY DEALER BY CASTE- RAJAWAT R/O H
NO 67, TANSEN ROAD HAZIRA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. DILIP SINGH TOMAR S/O SHRI MOHAR SINGH
TOMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, BY CASTE- TOMAR
THAKUR OCCUPATION- PRIVATE JOB, R/O
MAHAVEER COLONY, KALPI BRIDGE COLONY,
GOLE KA MANDIR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ARSHAD ALI- ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ANANG PAL SINGH S/O LATE SHRI MEHTAB
SINGH BHADORIYA, AGED 58 YEARS, BY CASTE-
BHADORIYA THAKUR OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
R/O 11, ADITYAPURAM THANA MAHARAJPURA
DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION MAHARAJPURA, DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ATUL MEWRA- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(SHRI R.S. KUSHWAH- DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENT/STATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
With consent heard finally.
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of FIR
registered at Crime No.12/2022 at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior
for the offence under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC and subsequent proceedings
thereof on the basis of compromise.
2. It appears that parties agreed to settle the matter and therefore,
applications vide I.A.No.4208/2024 and I.A. No.4209/2024 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 application, 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 rejection of the petition.
5. Counsel for the complainant argued in support of petitioners' prayer
for compromise. He referred affidavit filed by the complainant and is ready to
settle the matter.
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. To preserve the resources and bonhomie created between the parties
arises out of settlement, in the interest of justice, application for compounding
the offence vide I.A.No.4208/2024 and I.A. 4209/2024 are allowed because
no fruitful purpose would be served in continuation of trial. Thus, parties are
permitted to compound the offences.
11. This Court gave suggestions to the petitioners to rise to the occasion
and try to make some efforts and sincere endeavors for betterment of the
country and environment. Considering the suggestions and after due
contemplation, they are ready to deposit Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) in favour of Army Central Welfare Fund having A/C
No.520101236373338 of Union Bank of India, Branch Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006, IFSC Code UBIN0530778 within fifteen days from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order.
12.Resultantly, the petition is allowed. FIR registered at Crime
No.12/2022 registered at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior for the
offence under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC against the petitioners and
subsequent proceedings thereof are hereby quashed.
13. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Vishal
