Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rishi Kesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 March, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 MCRC-54373-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
LOK ADALAT
MCRC No. 54373 of 2024
(RISHI KESH AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 08-03-2025
Shri Sunil Bharadwaj - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri A.K. Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the respondents/ State.
Shri Arshad Ali - Advocate for respondent No.4/ complainant.
1. The present petition is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
(Section 528 of BNSS) for quashing of FIR registered at Police Station
Mahua, District-Morena in connection with Crime No.105/2024.
2. It appears that parties are agreed to settle the matter and they want
to settle the matter once and for all. They filed applications vide
I.A.No.26780/2024 and I.A.No.26781/2024 under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. to
settle the matter by way of compromise. Both the parties have appeared
before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 16/01/2025 to ink-down their
identities and intents. The Principal Registrar of this Court has duly verified
the intent and signatures of parties. The report in this regard is attached. The
same is perused and it appears that compromise has been reached between
the parties voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has no objection
if both the parties want to settle the dispute by way of compromise.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4/ complainant also supports the
prayer of petitioner for compromise. He referred the statement of
2 MCRC-54373-2024
complainant given before the Principal Registrar of this Court that he is
ready to settle the matter once and for all.
5. 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.
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 6 41, 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. Considering the submissions 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 320 of Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent
abuse of the process of law and wasteful exercise by the Courts below.
8. Thus, in the interest of justice, applications vide I.A.No.26780/2024
and I.A.No.26781/2024 are allowed, the prayer made by the parties is hereby
accepted because no fruitful purpose would be served in continuation of trial.
3 MCRC-54373-2024
Thus, parties are permitted to compound the offences by way of compromise.
9. Resultantly, the petition is disposed of in the light of the
compromise arrived at between the parties. FIR registered at Crime
No.105/2024 at Police Station Mahua, District-Morena against the
petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 324(4) of BNSS, 296 of
BNSS, 115(2) of BNSS, 351(2) of BNSS and 3(5) of BNSS and all the
consequential criminal proceedings arising out the said crime number is
hereby quashed.
10. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance.
11. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HARISH DIXIT)
MEMBER MEMBER
VC
