Madhya Pradesh High Court
Payal Semual vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5440
1 MCRC-35937-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35937 of 2023
PAYAL SEMUAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Indu Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Aseem K. Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
The instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
by the petitioner for quashing of FIR registered at Crime No.250/2018
registered at Police Station Ladganj, District Jabalpur under Sections 420,
467, 468 & 471 of IPC. It is contended that the FIR and all consequential
proceedings be quashed on the basis of compromise.
2. It appears that parties have agreed to settle the matter and therefore,
application for compromise was filed before the Trial Court. The Trial Court
vide order dated 26/07/2023 accepted the compromise under Section 420 of
IPC but rejected the compromise under other provisions on account of the
position that Sections 467, 468 and 471 are not compoundable.
3. This Court vide order dated 26/09/2023 had directed the parties to
appear before the Registrar (J-II) of this Court for verification of
compromise and incompliance of the said order, the parties appeared before
the Registrar (J-II) on 19/12/2023. It is reported by the Registrar (J-II) of this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5440
2 MCRC-35937-2023
Court that both the parties have expressed they have voluntarily entered into
compromise and the applicant stated that she had entered into compromise
with free will and volition without any threat and inducement and the same
was contended by the respondent No.2/complainant before the Registrar (J-
II). The statements recorded by the Registrar (J-II) are appended to the
verification report dated 19/12/2023.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer while the
learned counsel for the complainant as well as the counsel for the applicant
has supported the prayer for compromise, quashing the FIR and
consequential proceedings.
5. It is the case where as per the allegations against the applicant, the
applicant/accused is running an event organizer company at Bhopal and she
required some person who will book tickets of air and Rail etc by investing
his own amount and the amount would be paid within 15 days. In this
manner it will be a running credit system of business. The complainant
booked various tickets at the asking of the accused/applicant and in that
manner he invested an amount of Rs.75.01 Lakhs but the accused paid him
only Rs.35.00 Lakhs, thus an amount of Rs.40.01 Lakhs was outstanding. A
cheque was issued by the accused for the amount outstanding but it was
returned with the endorsement that drawers signature defers. In this manner
it appears to be purely business transaction between the accused and the
complainant. During the course of hearing, it was argued by learned counsel
for the applicant that now the entire payment has been paid to the
complainant and nothing remains to be paid in terms of the said business
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5440
3 MCRC-35937-2023
transactions. Both the parties do not have any criminal background and since
the parties have settled their business disputes, quashing criminal
proceedings in compromise would serve peace in the future life of the
parties.
6. 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.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into account
the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court so also the aforesaid factual
matrix of the case, continuation of criminal proceedings in such a matter will
be a futile exercise which will serve no purpose when the dispute in question
is purely a business dispute. In such a situation, it is a fit case to invoke
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent wasteful exercise by the
Courts below.
8. Therefore, in the interest of justice, application for compounding the
offence filed before the Trial Court is allowed because no fruitful purpose
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5440
4 MCRC-35937-2023
would be served in continuation of trial. The parties are permitted to
compound the offences.
9. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. The FIR bearing Crime
No.250/2018 registered at Police Station Ladganj, District Jabalpur under
Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and all consequential proceedings on
the basis of compromise stand quashed against the petitioner. Petition stands
allowed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
