Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7526
1 M.Cr.C.No. 48821 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48821 of 2024
RAJESH DUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashirwad Dwivedi - Advocate for applicants.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani- Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
Shri Pradeep Katare- Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, has been filed for quashment of
FIR in Crime No. 349 of 2021 registered at Police Station Gohad, District Bhind, for
offences under Sections 307, 294, 341, 34, and 201 of IPC.
2. It is the case of applicants that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order
dated 3.1.2024 passed in MCRC No. 54171 of 2023, has quashed the FIR against co-
accused on the basis of compromise. The case of applicant is also identical to the
case of Bhanupratap alias Gullu Sikarwar.
3. On 27.2.2025, following order was passed:
"Dated :27-02-2025
Shri Ashirbad Dwivedi - Advocate for applicant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7526
Dr. Anjali Gyanani - Pulbic Prosecutor for State.
Shri Pradeep Katare - Advocate for respondent No.2.
Counsel for State is directed to keep available the case diary
on the next date of hearing.
Parties are directed to appear before the Principal Registrar of
this Court on 03.03.2025 for verification of factum of compromise.
Whether FIR can be quashed on the basis of compromise or
not, shall be considered after case diary as well as report of Principal
Registrar of this Court is received.
List this case after report of Principal Registrar is received."
4. Principal Registrar of this Court, after recording the statements of witnesses,
has given the following report:
06.03.2025
In compliance of Hon'ble Court order dated 27.02.2025 the matter
is placed before me for verification of compromise.
Complainant/respondent No.2 Bhole Khan is present with his
Counsel Shri M.L. Yadav who has identified him.
Accused/Applicant No.1 Rajesh Dubey and No.2. Pratik
Khandelwal are present with their Counsel Shri Ashirbad Dwivedi Adv
who has identified them.
Other Accused mentioned in the F.I.R. namely Gullu
Sikarwar and Rupendra Rajawat are neither made party nor
present.
Parties have submitted copy of their Aadhar Cards regarding their
identification.
Parties have filed I.A. No. 24143/2024 and 24144/2024
respectively for compromise alongwith their affidavits.
Statements of Complainant/respondent No.2 Bhole Khan and
Accused/Applicant No.1 Rajesh Dubey and No.2. Pratik Khandelwal
are recorded. Matter perused, inquired and verified as to factum of
compromise.
Having verified the factum of Complainant/respondent No.2
Bhole Khan, I am of the view that he has arrived at compromise with
Accused/Applicant No.1 Rajesh Dubey and No.2. Pratik Khandelwal
voluntarily, without any threat, inducement or coercion.
Report is submitted accordingly.
Therefore, case be listed as per order of the Hon'ble Court."
5. Thus, it is clear that the applicant and complainant have entered into a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7526
compromise. From the statement of complainant, it is clear that he has merely
entered into an agreement with applicants namely Rajesh Dubey and Pratik
Khandelwal as he has stated as under:
"2- esjs }kjk vkosndx.k jkts'k nqcs] izrhd [k.Msyoky ,oa nks vU; ds
fo:) iqfyl Fkkuk xksgn] ftyk fHk.M esa vijk/k dzekad 349@2021
vUrxZr /kkjk 307] 294] 341] 34 ,oa btkQk /kkjk 201 Hkk-n-fo- ds rgr izdj.k
iathc) djk;k Fkk A ftlesa esjk flQZ vkosndx.k jkts'k nqcs ,oa izrhd
[k.Msyoky ls vkilh lgefr ls jkthukek gks x;k A"
6. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether the FIR can be
quashed on the basis of compromise or not.
7. Applicants have not disclosed in the application that they are still absconding
and police has kept the investigation pending against them under Section 173(8) of
Cr.P.C. On the contrary, false statement has been made in paragraph 2 of the
application, which reads as under:
"2- ;gfd Qfj;knh@vukosnd dzekad 2 Hkksys [kkW dh dh fjiksVZ ij ls
[email protected] ,oa vU; lg vkjksihx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 307] 294]
341] 34 Hkk-n-fo- dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ dh x;h gS rFkk foospuk ds nkSjku
/kkjk 201 Hkknfo dk btkQk fd;k tkdj rFkk vijk/k dk vuqla/kku iw.kZ dj
vfHk;ksx irz U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A "
8. Thus, it is clear that applicants have misled this court by claiming that police
has completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet.
9. It is not the end of matter. Applicants have deliberately not filed complete
charge sheet. Only first page of final report has been filed and the pages containing
the status of investigation has been deliberately suppressed.
10. Furthermore, in compliance of order dated 27.2.2025, counsel for State has
produced the copy of case diary. The case diary contains complete final report
including the annexures. As per final report, applicants and Gullu Sikarwar are still
absconding and, accordingly, investigation has been kept pending under section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7526
173(8) of Cr.P.C.. This part of final report has been deliberately suppressed by the
applicants.
11. Applicants have relied upon the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Bhanupratap alias Gullu Sikarwar which was decided on
3/1/2024 in M.Cr.C. No.54171/2023. It appears that the co-accused Bhanupratap
alias Gullu Sikarwar had filed an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. on
1/12/2023 whereas charge-sheet against co-accused Rupendra Singh Rajawat was
filed on 18/12/2023. It is true that on the date of filing of application under section
482 of Cr.P.C. by the co-accused, charge-sheet was not filed, but when the case was
taken up on 3/1/2024, charge-sheet was already filed. Therefore, it was obligatory
on the part of co-accused Bhanupratap alias Gullu Sikarwar to point out that charge-
sheet has been filed and he is absconding, but that was not done.
12. Be that whatever it may be,
13. The case diary contains injury report of Bhole Khan, according to which exit
and entry wounds of fire arm were found on the right upper arm. In the present case,
applicants have suppressed material fact and have made a false submission that
charge-sheet has been filed without disclosing that they are still absconding and
investigation has been kept pending under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Suppression of
material fact by itself is sufficient to dismiss the application. It is well established
principle of law that parties must come before the Court with clean hands and fraud
vitiates everything. By making false submission in paragraph 2 of application that
charge-sheet has been filed without disclosing that applicants are absconding and
investigation against them has been kept pending under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.,
it is clear that applicants have played fraud upon the Court and, therefore, on this
count alone, application for quashment of FIR on the basis of compromise is liable to
be rejected. Furthermore, firing a gunshot in a public place is a serious offence
against the society. Firing must have sent a wave of terror amongst the general
public. Therefore, in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7526
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab ((2012)10 SCC 303) and Narinder Singh and
others Vs. State of Punjab and another ((2014)6 SCC 466) coupled with the fact
that applicants have tried to play fraud upon the Court by making a false statement as
already mentioned above, this Court is of considered opinion that no case is made
out warranting quashment of FIR on the ground of compromise.
14. Application fails and is, hereby, dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
(and)
