Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Vikas Goswami vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 13342 MP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 13342 MP
Judgement Date : 9 May, 2024

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vikas Goswami vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2024

Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar

Bench: Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar

                                         1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                             AT G WA L I O R
                                    BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S. KALGAONKAR

    MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14285 OF 2024

 BETWEEN:-
 VIKAS GOSWAMI, SON OF SHRI MANOJ GOSWAMI,
 AGE- 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION- AGRICULTURE,
 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PAROLI, POLICE STATION
 BANMORE, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                   .....PETITIONER
 (SHRI ARVIND KUMAR DWIVEDI- ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER)

 AND
 1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
 STATION MAHARAJPURA, DISTRICT GWALIOR
 (MADHYA PRADESH)

 2. RAMSWAROOP SINGH TOMAR, SON OF SHRI GAR
 SINGH TOMAR, AGE- 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION-
 AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ORETHI,
 POLICE STATION NAGRA, DISTRICT MORENA
 (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
 (SHRI RAJEEV UPADHYAY- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR RESPONDENT
 NO.1- STATE
 SHRI PRABHAT RAJPUT- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2-
 COMPLAINANT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Reserved on                  :         30-04-2024
               Pronounced on                  :         09-05-2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition having been heard and reserved for order, coming
on for pronouncement this day, Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar
                                   2



pronounced the following:
                              ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by

petitioner- Vikas Goswami, seeking quashment of FIR pertaining to

Crime No.613 of 2023 registered by PS Maharajpura, District Gwalior

for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC with

all consequential proceedings in connection with Sessions Trial No.629

of 2023 pending before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge,

Gwalior.

(2) As per the case of prosecution, Ramswaroop Singh Tomar

(respondent No.2) submitted a written complaint with SHO Police

Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior inter alia alleging forgery, fraud

and cheating by Vikas Goswami (petitioner), Akash Gurjar, Sabharam

Gurjar and others. It is alleged that Vikas Goswami, Akash Gurjar and

Sabharam Gurjar approached him and his partner Ashok Tiwari

proposing sale of agricultural land in survey no.119 of Village

Bhadrauli, District Gwalior. Vikas Goswami, Akash Gurjar and

Sabharam Gurjar introduced them to Vijayram Dhobi and Pramod

Dhobi as owner of agricultural land. On assurance of Vikas, Akash and

Sabharam, they entered into agreement of sale with said Vijayram and

Pramod. He and Ashok Tiwari paid Rs.15 lac in cash to Vikas

Goswami, Akash Gurjar and Sabharam Gurjar and gave cheque for

amount of Rs.33.50 lac in favour of Vijayram. Vijayram and Pramod

executed registered sale deed on 21-06-2023. He and Ashok Tiwari

paid expenses of registry to the tune of Rs.10,90,000/-. Pramod and

Akash Gurjar returned cheque no.000078 and took Rs.9,50,000/- in

cash. When he and his partner Ashok Tiwari started construction of

boundary on the land, the original owner Vijayram informed that the

land belongs to him. Then, they came to know that Vikas Goswami,

Akash Gurjar and Sabharam in association of impersonator - Vijayram

and Pramod have cheated them and executed forged registered sale

deed. On such allegations, PS Maharajpura, District Gwalior registered

FIR at Crime No.613 of 2023 for offence punishable under Sections

420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. Relevant seizure has been made. Akash

Gurjar was taken into custody. Akash Gurjar, in his statement recorded

under Section 27 of Evidence Act, informed that Leeladhar Shakya

fraudulently impersonated as Vijayram Dhobi and Pramod Kushwah,

fraudulently impersonated as son of Vijayram Dhobi. He, his father

Sabharam, Vikas Gurjar, Leeladhar Shakya and Pramod Kushwah in

conspiracy committed cheating and forgery with complainant.

Accordingly, Pramod Kushwah, Leeladhar Shakya and Sabharam

Gurjar were arrested. Relevant seizures have been made. On

completion of investigation, Final Report was submitted.

(3) During pendency of this petition, applications (IA No.7028 of

2024 and IA No. 7029 of 2024) under Sections 320(1) and 320(2) of

CrPC were filed for granting permission to compound offence along-

with affidavits of petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant stating

therein that they have resolved the dispute amicably and they do not

wish to pursue the matter anymore.

(4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that both the parties

have amicably settled the dispute, therefore, FIR at Crime No.613 of

2023 along-with all subsequent proceedings deserves to be quashed.

Learned Counsel places reliance on judgments of Supreme Court in

case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1968,

Jagdish Chanana and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR

2008 SC 1968 and Narinder Singh and Others, (2014) AIR (SCW)

2065.

(5) Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant

does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties.

(6) This Court vide order dated 13-04-2024 had directed the parties

to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for recording of

their statements and for verification of factum of compromise. The

Principal Registrar has submitted his report on 18-04-2024 and verified

the factum of compromise.

(7) Heard learned Counsel for the parties on IA No.7028/2024 & IA

No.7029 of 2024; and main petition under Section 482 of CrPC and

perused the record.

(8) As per the case of prosecution, Ramswaroop Singh Tomar and

his partner Ashok Tiwari have been defrauded and cheated by

executing a forged sale deed in their favour by Leeladhar Shakya

impersonating as Vijayram Dhobi. Vikas Goswami, Akash Gurjar,

Sabharam Gurjar and Pramod Kushwah have fraudulently and

dishonestly induced Ramswaroop Singh Tomar and Ashok Tiwari to

pay Rs.15 lac in cash at the time of execution of sale deed and later,

Rs.9,50,000/- in cash in lieu of return of cheque. Further, they had to

pay expenses of registry to the tune of Rs.10,90,000/-. The material

available on case diary prima facie makes out involvement of the

petitioner- Vikas Goswami in the alleged offence of forgery, cheating

and criminal misappropriation in association with other co-accused.

The compromise application is executed by Ramswaroop Singh Tomar

in favour of Vikas Goswami only. No compromise is proposed by

Ashok Tiwari, partner of Ramswaroop Singh Tomar.

(9) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Madan Mohan Abbot

(supra), Jagdish Chanana (supra) and Narinder Singh (supra) held

that where the prosecution relates to dispute of purely personal in

nature and no public policy is involved in the nature of allegations

made against the accused, no useful purpose would be served in

continuing the proceedings, in view of compromise between the

parties, the FIR may be quashed.

(10) The learned Trial Court has framed the charges and trial is

underway. No inference can be drawn at this stage that the prosecution

would fail for the reason of compromise between one of complainants,

namely, Ramswaroop Singh Tomar (respondent No.2) and one of

accused, namely, Vikas Goswami (petitioner). The allegations are not

purely personal in nature. Rather, it is a case of cheating by

impersonation and execution of forged sale deed in favour of

complainant. Therefore, it has ramification on public order. It is a case

of manipulation of process for registration of sale deed by executing

forged documents relating to identification also. It cannot be concluded

that continuation of prosecution would be futile exercise. The benefit

of precedents cited by the petitioner, in the fact-scenario, does not

enure to him. It is not a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction

under Section 482 of CrPC for quashment of FIR as well as further

criminal proceedings in view of compromise between the petitioner

and respondent No.2. Accordingly, IA No. 7028 of 2024 and IA No.

7029 of 2024 are dismissed.

(11) Consequently, petition under Section 482 of CrPC is dismissed.

(SANJEEV S. KALGAONKAR) JUDGE 09/05/2024

MKB

MAHENDR

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=8c6d4d6122d7ee987e457a3bec5922cacbc050c998981

A BARIK 397a35d9758a2b55074, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=AB90F893988F10D718DA01F8065D87F25DDC9B 6C8C3FF0E5E280DD36D476F6BA, cn=MAHENDRA BARIK Date: 2024.05.11 02:38:10 +05'30'

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter