Madhya Pradesh High Court
Avdhesh Sharma vs State Of M.P. on 8 March, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1 CRR-354-2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
LOK ADALAT
CRR No. 354 of 2013
(AVDHESH SHARMA Vs STATE OF M.P. )
Dated : 08-03-2025
Shri Mukesh Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.K.Nirankari - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Petitioner - Avdhesh Sharma and complainant - Girjesh are present in
person.
Both the parties specifically submit that matter pertains to offence
under Section 323 of IPC. They have settled their matter and they do not
want to pursue the matter.
Considering the submission, both the parties are directed to appear
before the Principal Registrar of this Court today itself for verification of
factum of compromise.
Matter be placed before this Lok Adalat in post lunch session once
verification report is obtained.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HARISH DIXIT)
MEMBER MEMBER
SP
2 CRR-354-2013
Later on (08.03.2025)
1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner under Section 397
and 401 of Cr.P.C. being crestfallen by the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 29.04.2013 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhind in Cr.A.No.10/2013 confirming the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the trial Court dated 20.12.2012 passed in Case
No.1979/2009, whereby petitioner has been convicted under Section 323 of
IPC (two counts) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of
Rs.300 /- with default stipulation.
2. It appears that after conviction being recorded by the Courts below
parties have agreed to settle the matter and they want to settle the matter
once and for all. Both the parties have appeared before the Principal
Registrar of this Court today itself to ink down their identity and intent. The
Principial 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. Complainants Girjesh Dubey and Sonu Dubey also supported the
prayer of the petitioner for compromise. Their statements have been recorded
before the Principal Registrar of this Court and they are ready to settle the
matter once and for all.
5. A Lean Compromise is better than a Fat Law Suit, instant efforts of
3 CRR-354-2013
the parties indicate the same. It is expected that their bona fide 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 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 . Considering the submissions and taking into account the lawlaid
down by the Apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, keeping the present
revision pending, will be a fuitle exercise which will serve no purpose.
Therefore, the parties are permitted to settle the matter.
8. Thus, in the interest of justice, compromise is allowed because no
fruitful purpose would be served in continuation of trial. Thus, parties are
permitted to compound the offences.
9. Resultantly, the petition is disposed of in the light of the
compromise arrived at between the parties. The impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2013 passed by 5th Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhind in Cr.A.No.10/2013 and the judgment of conviction
4 CRR-354-2013
and order of sentence passed by the trial Court dated 20.12.2012 in Case
No.1979/2009 are hereby set aside on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties. Petitioner is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.
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
SP
