Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjeev Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 May, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE LOK ADALAT
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
SOCIAL WORKER DR. S. K. MATHUR
ON THE 10th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CR. CASE NO. 13525 of 2025
SANJEEV SINGH & ORS.
Vs.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCE:
Petitioner No.1 - Sanjeev Singh is present in person.
Respondents No.2&3 namely Naresh and Bhagwandas are present in person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
1. Due to call given by High Court Bar Association, Gwalior, lawyers
are abstaining from work.
2. The instant petition is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
petitioners seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime
No.296/2024 at Police Station Raun, district Bhind for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC as well
as private complaint No.77/2024 on the basis of compromise.
3. Petitioner No.1 as well as complainants submits that due to some
misunderstanding, FIR has been lodged by the complainants against
the petitioners. Thereafter, good sense prevailed between the parties,
they resolved the matter and thereafter, preferred the instant petition
seeking compounding of the offence as referred above. It is further
submitted that since parties have settled their dispute once and for all,
therefore, they preferred I.A.No.8108/2025 and I.A.No.8110/2025
seeking permission to compound the offence so that parties may live
peacefully and precious time of the Court may be saved. Applications
are duly supported by affidavits. Parties have decided not to
prosecute the case, therefore, continuation of trial would not serve
any fruitful purpose. Thus, prayed for allowing the present petition.
4. Principal Registrar of this Court duly verified the parties, contents of
application, intent and signatures of parties. Report is attached, same
is perused and it appears that compromise has been reached between
the parties voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.
5. Respondents No.2&3/complainants supported the petitioners' prayer
for compromise. They referred affidavits filed by the complainants
and are ready to settle the matter once and for all.
6. Heard.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties 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 482 Cr.P.C. can be
justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and
wasteful exercise by the courts below.
10. In view of the above, looking to the fact that parties have settled the
matter and intended to live peacefully once and for all, therefore, in
the interest of justice, applications for compounding the offence vide
I.A.No.8108/2025 and I.A.No.8110/2025 are allowed because no
fruitful purpose would be served in continuation of trial. Thus, parties
are permitted to compound the offences.
11. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and FIR registered at Crime
No.296/2024 at Police Station Raun, District Bhind for the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-
B of IPC as well as private complaint No.77/2024 stand
quashed against the petitioners on the basis of compromise.
Petitioners are discharged from all the charges.
12. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.
13. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for
compliance.
(ANAND PATHAK) (DR. S.K. MATHUR)
Anil* MEMBER MEMBER
ANIL KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT
OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
CHAURASIY
2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b51da
e27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7df50f,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F050119F06F4
A A296DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D8BD8CBCC9C2
446E, cn=ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA
Date: 2025.05.23 16:11:01 +05'30'
