Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashu Parihar @ Vedpal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10478
1 MCRC-14550-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 13th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14550 of 2025
ASHU PARIHAR @ VEDPAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravi Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Ms.Kajal Tundelkar- Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing the FIR registered at Crime No.66/2021 at Police Station-
Daboh, District Bhind for the offence punishable under Sections 294,
307, 506, 147, 148 of IPC and all consequential proceedings arising out
of it on the basis of compromise.
2 . The allegation against the petitioner is that he fired gunshot on the
complainant with intention to kill.
3. I.A.No.7272/2025 and I.A.No.7273/2025 have been filed for
compromise by the petitioner as well as respondent No.2, duly supported
by their affidavits.
4. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the factum of
compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10478
2 MCRC-14550-2025
who has recorded statement of complainant/respondent No.2 as well as
petitioner and has submitted a report that the parties have arrived at
compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent
No.2 has entered into a compromise with the petitioner and, therefore,
the present petition has been filed for compounding the offence on the
basis of compromise.
6 . 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.
7 . 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.
8. 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 which a criminal case under Section 376 IPC against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10478
3 MCRC-14550-2025
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."
9. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10478
4 MCRC-14550-2025
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
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."
10. The Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Ranjeet
Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Others, 2023 SCC Online HP 1625 in para
29.6 has held as under:-
"29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category
of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally
treated as crime against the society and not against the individual
alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision
merely because there is a mention of Section 307IPC in the FIR
or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to
the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section
307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected
sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the
charge under Section 307IPC. For this purpose, it would be open
to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether
such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10478
5 MCRC-14550-2025
suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On
the basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine
as to whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the
chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case it
can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal
proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible for
the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence based
on complete settlement between the parties. At this stage, the
Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement between
the parties is going to result in harmony between them which
may improve their future relationship."
11. As per the case of prosecution, the injury was not caused to
anyone. In the case of Naushey Ali & Others Vs. State of U.P. and
Another reported in (2025) 02 SC Ck 0034, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that offences under Section 307 of IPC and the Arms Act etc.,
would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore
are treated as crime against society. But the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 of IPC in the
F.I.R. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 of IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would
lead to framing the charge under Section 307 of IPC. It would be open to
the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such
injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10478
6 MCRC-14550-2025
weapons used etc.
12. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Daulat Singh Gurjar
and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vide order dated
08.11.2024 and Makhan Singh Gurjar and Others Vs. Madhya Pradesh
Shasan and Others vide order dated 12.12.2024, quashed the F.I.R. in the
cases of comprise between the party wherein no injury was caused to any
person. In this case also there is no injury sustained by any one by the
gunshot fire of the petitioner.
13. On testing the attending facts and circumstances of this case on the
anvil of the dictum laid down in aforesaid cases and taking into
consideration that parties have settled their disputes by way of
compromise and the crime in question is between the parties, who now
have 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 is 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 the challan
has not been filed, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:10478
7 MCRC-14550-2025
14. Resultantly, this Court allows this petition by quashing the FIR
bearing Crime No.66/2021 at Police Station-Daboh, District Bhind for
the offence punishable under Sections 294, 307, 506, 147, 148 of IPC of
IPC and all consequential proceedings arising out of it on the basis of
compromise, so far as it relate to the petitioner.
13. This petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
mani
