Anil Kumar Ahuja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3766 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Anil Kumar Ahuja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 August, 2025

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21532




                                                         1                            CRR-3130-2025
                                 IN      THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                                                      PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
                                               ON THE 11th OF AUGUST, 2025
                                         CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3130 of 2025
                                             ANIL KUMAR AHUJA
                                                   Versus
                                  THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                 Ms.Shiwani Kumawat - Advocate for the petitioner.
                                 Shri Rahul Solanki - G.A for the respondent/State.

                                                             ORDER

This criminal revision is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2025 (Annexure A/1) in special trial no.99/2021 by 19th A.S.J, Indore whereby the prayer of acquittal on the basis of compromise has been partly allowed.

2. Facts in brief are that in crime no.353/2020 registered at PS

Aerodrome, Indore a final report under section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 was submitted under sections 420, 406, 409 r/w section 34 of the IPC and section 6 of the M.P Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 2000 against the present petitioners.

3. The charges were framed unders ections 409 & 420/34 of the IPC and section 6(1) of the M.P Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21532

2 CRR-3130-2025 Adhiniyam, 2000.

4. The framing of charges were not challenged but during the recording of evidence a compromise was filed on behalf of 4 victim and the revision petitioners and vide order dated 11.04.2025 the trial court rejected the application recording reasons that the compromise has not been filed by the victim as there are 11 victims but the compromise has been filed only by 4 victims, therefore, only section 420 IPC is compoundable. Challenging the said order, this revision is preferred.

5. Heard.

6. State counsel has opposed the petition.

7. Perused the record.

8. The reasons recorded by the trial court in rejecting the application for acquitting the revision petitioners from all the charges are proper. There is no illegality in it but the factum of compromise with the revision petitioners may be considered at the time of sentence. Hence, this revision petition is disposed of with the direction that the compromise be considered at the time of final judgment and be taken into consideration, if conviction is recorded.

(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE

hk/