Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Singh vs State Of M.P. on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28464
1 CRA-155-2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 10th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 155 of 2007
RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Smt.Uma Kushwah - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pursottam Tanwar- PL for the State.
ORDER
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/accused persons
against the judgment dated 09.02.2007 passed by Special Judge (Dakaiti
Prabhavit Kshetra), Gwalior (M.P.) in Special Session Case No.50/2006
whereby, appellants have been convicted for commission of offence u/Ss.
325 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-
and Section 327 of IPC r/w Section 13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced to
undergo three years' R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.
During pendency of this Criminal appeal, the appellants and the
respondents/complainants have filed the applications which are
I.A.Nos.17632/2025 and I.A.No.18707/2025 seeking permission of this
Court to dispose of the matter on the basis of compromise. In support of
aforesaid application, affidavits have also been filed. Counsel for the parties
submit that both the parties have entered into compromise according to their
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28464
2 CRA-155-2007
own volition and without there being any pressure.
On 01.09.2025, the parties were directed to appear before the Principal
Registrar of this Court for verification of factum of compromise. In
compliance of the said order, the Registry has filed its report mentioning that
parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily, without any threat,
inducement and coercion.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the light of case of
Ramgopal and Another vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 1489/2012) since
injuries caused to the injured persons are not on the vital part of the body and
the matter involves non-heinous offence, the impugned judgment deserves to
be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charge
levelled against them under sections 325 and 327of IPC r/w Section
MPDVPK Act.
The learned State counsel has not raised any objection in view of the
fact that the matter has already been settled between the parties on the basis
of compromise.
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-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28464
3 CRA-155-2007
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.
Consequent upon the abovesaid facts that the appellants and
respondents/complainants have amicably resolved the issue, therefore,
17632/2025 and I.A.No.18707/2025 are hereby allowed. The compromise
entered into between the parties is accepted as a result of which all offences
emanating out of the FIR leading to filing of the instant criminal appeal
stands annulled. The judgment dated 09.02.2007 passed by the trial court is
set aside. Resultantly, the appellants are acquitted of the charges for which
they were convicted by the trial court. The bail bond and surety of the
appellants shall also stand discharged.
Appeal is accordingly disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
