Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Sharma Saraswat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6351
1 MCRC-46960-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 18 th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 46960 of 2024
PRAVEEN SHARMA SARASWAT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.K. Jha - learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Anurag Sharma - learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
Shri Ranjeet Singh Rawat - learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
FIR bearing Crime No.299/2020 registered at Police Station- Mahila Padav, Distt.
Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506, 34 of IPC and
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all other consequential proceedings
arising out of it, on the basis of compromise.
2. As per prosecution case, marriage of complainant/respondent No.2 was
solemnized with petitioner No.1 - Praveen Sharma on 16.04.2019. After marriage,
petitioners started harassing the respondent No.2/complainant in connection with
demand of dowry and they ousted her from the matrimonial home.
3. I.A.No.23307/2024 and I.A. No.23309/2024 have been filed by the
petitioners as well as respondent No.2 duly supported by their affidavits for
compromise.
4. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the factum of compromise
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6351
2 MCRC-46960-2024
has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, who has recorded
statements of complainant/respondent No.2 as well as petitioners and has
submitted a report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without
any threat, inducement and coercion. As per the compromise, both the parties
have moved an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for
divorce before the Family Court. They are residing separately. They are ready and
willing to part with each other.
5 . It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent
No.2/complainant has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and,
therefore, the present petition has been filed for compounding the offence on the
basis of compromise.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant has no objection to the
prayer made on behalf of the petitioners.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on
record as well as verification report submitted by Principal Registrar of this Court.
8 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ramavtar Vs. State of M.P.
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, [(2012) 10
SCC 303], and Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr., [(2014) 6 SCC
466, 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, 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.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kapil Gupta Vs. State of NCT of Delhi &
Another passed in Criminal Appeal No.1217 of 2022 decided on 10.8.2022 in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6351
3 MCRC-46960-2024
which a criminal case under Section 376 IPC against the petitioner therein was
considered for quashment of FIR on the basis of compromise wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while considering the dictum in the case of Narinder Singh (supra)
held in para 13 and 14 that if there is insufficient evidence and by virtue of
compromise there is no chance of conviction and the settlement between the
parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their
mutual relationship then at primary stage on such compromise, proceedings may
be quashed. Para 13 and 14 of Kapil Gupta (supra) are material and thus
reproduced for ready reference and convenience:
"13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the
Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and
serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from
examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such
an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved
would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The
Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement
between the parties is going to result into harmony between them
which may improve their mutual relationship.
14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to
what is stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an
application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led
and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court
should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings.
However, if such an application is made at an initial stage before
commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with the court in
exercising its power."
10. A three Judges' Bench of Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh
vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has held as under:-
"(1) The power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section
320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and
predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6351
4 MCRC-46960-2024
family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute
amongst themselves;
(2) Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions, which
involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature
and have a serious impact on society;
(3) Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under
the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants, while working in that capacity are not to
be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and
the offender."
11. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 the
Hon'ble Apex Court in para 14 & 16 has held as under :-
14. The same principle was followed in CBI v. Maninder Singh
[CBI v. Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 389 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri)
292] by a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court. In that case,
the High Court had, in the exercise of its inherent power under
Section 482 quashed proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and
471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing the
appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr Justice
Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that
the case involved allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle
the funds of the bank. In such a situation, the fact that the dispute
had been settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to the
power under Section 482 : (SCC p. 394, para 17)
"17. ... In economic offences the Court must not only
keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has
been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case
of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the
offence with which we are concerned was well planned and
was committed with a deliberate design with an eye on
personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at
large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the
accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a
misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic
offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community
is aggrieved."
16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents
on the subject, may be summarised in the following
propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High
Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to
secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new
powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6351
5 MCRC-46960-2024
inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to
quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on
the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the
offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of
jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence.
While compounding an offence, the power of the court is
governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under
Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding
or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether
the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent
power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide
ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the
ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of
any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first
information report should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and
no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and
while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled,
the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences
involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the
victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute.
Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but
have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue
with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding
element of public interest in punishing persons for serious
offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant
element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing
insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is
concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6351
6 MCRC-46960-2024
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause
oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the State
have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere
dispute between private disputants. The High Court would
be justified in declining to quash where the offender is
involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud
or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained
of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the
balance.
12. The present matter is purely of matrimonial dispute and family matter and
both the parties i.e. the complainant/wife and accused persons, husband and other
in-laws have reached to an amicable compromise between them. The dispute is
personal which has been settled amicably, therefore, on the basis of such
compromise petition quashment of FIR may be considered conveniently.
13. In case of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4
SCC 675 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that FIR can be quashed by invoking
inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in case of offences registered under
Section 498-A and 406 of IPC. The dispute is matrimonial between husband and
wife and their relatives. For the purpose of securing the ends of justice quashing of
FIR is necessary in such a case. Section 320 of Cr.P.C. is not a bar in exercising
such powers of quashing. The dictum has been followed by High Court of Jammu
& Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in the case of S.Varinder Singh and others vs.
UT of J & K & Anr. in CrlM No.1187/2022.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6351
7 MCRC-46960-2024
14. Having regard to the aforesaid dictum as well as attending facts and
circumstances of the case, it is found that the crime in question is between the
parties, who now have settled their disputes and resumed their good relations. In
these circumstances, to save valuable time of the Court and in the interest of
justice, it appears to be a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. because letting the dispute hang on, there are chances that relationship
between the parties may disrupt again, moreover there are remote and bleak
possibility of conviction in this case keeping in view the compromise took place
between the parties. The settlement between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may improve their future relationship. It is also
pertinent to mention here that evidence is yet to be started in the case, as
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners.
15. Resultantly, this Court allows this petition by quashing the proceedings
of Crime No.299/2020 registered at Police Station- Mahila Padav, Distt. Gwalior
for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506, 34 of IPC and Section
4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and all consequential proceedings arising out of it.
16. This petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Ahmad
