Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalim Shaikh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 October, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30431
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT Indore
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 16th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34835 of 2025
KALIM SHAIKH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Jhala - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Apoorv Joshi - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Gagan Bajad - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the
petitioners seeking quashment of FIR pertaining to Crime No. 267/2023
registered by P.S. Nalkheda, Distt. Agar Malwa for offences punishable under
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30431
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 294 and 506 of IPC with all consequential
proceedings thereto, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. The exposition of the facts, giving rise to the present petition, is as
under:
Complainant - Shabnam Khan W/o Aijaz Khan submitted written
complaint to the P.S. Nalkheda interalia stating that Kalim Shekh,
Naushad Patel - (petitioner), Gulrez Khan have committed cheating by
executing forged sale deed of a plot. Gulrej in connivance with Kalim
Sheikh, Naushad Patel and Abdul Basit sold the land bearing Survey No.
221/1/2(actual survey no. 221/1 admeasuring 0.09 hectares) to the
complainant - Shabnam Khan w/o Aijaz Khan for a consideration of Rs
1.50 Crore out of which, Rs. 54,00,000/- was given in the form of PDC
cheques and Rs. 96,00,000/- was given in cash on different dates. When
complainant went to the office of Revenue Inspector(Patwari) for
mutation, she came to know that the plot in dispute was registered in the
name of Babu Khan, a resident of Nalkheda. The complainant demanded
her money back. Rs. 15 lakhs were deposited in her account and Rs. 96
lakhs are yet to be received.
During investigation, it was found that land bearing Survey No.
221/1/2 was registered in the name of Babu Khan S/o Peer Khan resident
of Nalkheda in the revenue records. It was mutated in the name Noor
Jahan and Sadema Khan, legal heirs of Yunus Khan alias Babu Khan by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30431
submitting forged death certificate of Babu Khan. Thereafter, two
different sale deeds were executed of the same land bearing Survey No.
221/1/2 on 16.02.2022 and 25.02.2022. One sale deed was executed in
the name - Naushad Patel, Abdul Basit and the other one was executed
in the name - Gulrez and the land was accordingly mutated in their
names. It was further revealed that Babu Khan S/o Peer Khan is in
possession of land bearing Survey no. 221/1/2 and had constructed a
house on the said land which exists till date. When original owner i.e.
Babu Khan came to know about the said illegal mutation, he submitted
complaint to the Tehsildar on 01.12.2022. The Tehsildar, Nalkheda after
enquiry set-aside the mutation order dated 11.01.2022 in favour of Noor
Jahan and Sadema Khan and all subsequent mutation orders. The name
of Babu Khan S/o Peer Khan was restored in revenue records.
Accordingly, P.S. Nalkheda registered FIR for offence punishable u/Ss
420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 294 and 506 of IPC. The investigation is
underway.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in addition to the grounds mentioned
in the petition submits that the accusation against the petitioners is false and the
dispute involved predominantly had overtures of civil dispute, which is given
color of criminal prosecution, so as to create undue pressure on the petitioners.
Learned counsel referring to the joint application i.e. I.A. No. 12324/2025 filed
u/S 359(2) of BNSS, 2023 submits that matter has amicably settled between
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30431
the petitioners and the complainant/respondent no.2.The factum of compromise
has duly been verified by the Principal Registrar on 15.09.2025 in compliance
with the order passed by this Court on 09.09.2025. Therefore, the impugned
FIR deserves to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the judgments passed in
the case of Naushey Ali and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
reported in (2025) SCC (Cri) 228 contends that a criminal proceeding may be
quashed considering settlement, although the offences are not compoundable,
if continuation of criminal proceeding will be an exercise in futility. However,
the crimes that have harmful effect on the public and threatens well-being of
the society should not be quashed. If the Court is satisfied on the face of
settlement arrived at between the parties that there is hardly any likelihood of
the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings,
justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated, the proceeding
should be quashed. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment in the
case of K. Bharthi Devi and Another Vs. State of Telangana and Another
reported in (2024) 10 SCC 384.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the petition and prays
for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30431
7. In case of Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9
SCC 641, the Supreme Court referred to the precedents on consideration of
compromise in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as under-
11. Section 482 is prefaced with an overriding provision. The statute saves the
inherent power of the High Court, as a superior court, to make such orders as are
necessary (i) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court; or (ii) otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. In Gian Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10
SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) r consider in determining
as to whether to quash an FIR or complaint in the exercise of the inherent
jurisdiction. The considerations which must weigh with the High Court are : (SCC
ppce 342-43, para 61)
"61. ... the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or
FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and
different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude
with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii)
to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the
offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However,
before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly
quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have
settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious
impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the
offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention
of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing
criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different
footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions
or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family
disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30431
parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High
Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of
conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would
put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the
High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the
interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of
the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is
put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative,
the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding."
12. In Narinder Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 :
(2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] , Dr Justice A.K. Sikri, speaking for a Bench of two learned
Judges of this Court observed that in respect of offences against society, it is the duty
of the State to punish the offender. In consequence, deterrence provides a rationale
for punishing the offender. Hence, even when there is a settlement, the view of the
offender and victim will not prevail since it is in the interest of society that the
offender should be punished to deter others from committing a similar crime. On the
other hand, there may be offences falling in the category where the correctional
objective of criminal law would have to be given more weightage than the theory of
deterrence. In such a case, the court may be of the opinion that a settlement between
the parties would lead to better relations between them and would resolve a festering
private dispute. The court observed that the timing of a settlement is of significance
in determining whether the jurisdiction under Section 482 should be exercised :
(SCC p. 484, para 29.7)
"29.7. ... Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the
alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the
High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the
investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to
start or the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie
assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30431
hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost complete or after the
conclusion of the evidence the matter is at the stage of argument, normally
the High Court should refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of
the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the
case finally on merits...."
This Court held, while dealing with an offence under Section 307 of the Penal Code
that the following circumstances had weighed with it in quashing the first
information report : (SCC p. 485, para 33)
"33. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis
of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the
complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some
previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute, etc. is not
stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz.
"respectable persons have been trying for a compromise uptil now, which
could not be finalised". This becomes an important aspect. It appears that
there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by
the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders
of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties
have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in
future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led
in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties,
there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the
prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by
producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may
become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of
conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be
unnecessary to drag these proceedings. ..."
13. In State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi [State of
Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri)
563] , a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court explained the earlier decisions
and the principles which must govern in deciding whether a criminal proceeding
involving a non-compoundable offence should be quashed. In that case, the
respondents were alleged to have obtained letters of credit from a bank in favour of
fictitious entities. The charge-sheet involved the offences under Sections 406, 420,
467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code. Bogus beneficiary
companies were alleged to have got them discounted by attaching fabricated bills.
Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was) emphasised that the
case involved an allegation of forgery; hence the Court was not dealing with a simple
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30431
case where "the accused had borrowed money from a bank, to divert it elsewhere".
The Court held that the manner in which letters of credit were issued and funds were
siphoned off had a foundation in criminal law : (SCC p. 42, para 26)
"26. ... availing of money from a nationalised bank in the manner, as alleged
by the investigating agency, vividly exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way,
financial fraud. The modus operandi as narrated in the charge-sheet cannot be
put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong. It is a social
wrong and it has immense societal impact. It is an accepted principle of
handling of finance that whenever there is manipulation and cleverly
conceived contrivance to avail of these kind of benefits it cannot be regarded
as a case having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil character. The
ultimate victim is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest of
the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent in the economic spine of
the nation."
The judgment of the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings was hence set
aside by this Court.
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."
15. In a subsequent decision in State of T.N. v. R. Vasanthi Stanley [State of
T.N. v. R. Vasanthi Stanley, (2016) 1 SCC 376 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 282] , the Court
rejected the submission that the first respondent was a woman "who was following
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30431
the command of her husband" and had signed certain documents without being
aware of the nature of the fraud which was being perpetrated on the bank. Rejecting
the submission, this Court held that : (SCC p. 387, paras 14-15)
"14. ... Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be considered
nor accepted in economic offences. The submission assiduously presented on
gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an
offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an accused. True it is,
there are certain provisions in CrPC relating to exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A
person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial scam or
forgery of documents, cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of
her gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument.
The offence is gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score.
15. ... A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that
matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial
health of the institutions, is not to be quashed on the ground that there is
delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has been settled it should
be quashed to avoid the load on the system. ..."
8. The three Judge Bench in Parbatbhai (supra) laid down as under-
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30431
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 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.
*******
18. The present case, as the allegations in the FIR would demonstrate, is not merely
one involving a private dispute over a land transaction between two contesting
parties. The case involves allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication of
documents, utilisation of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before
the registering authorities and the deprivation of the complainant of his interest in
land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. If the allegations in the FIR are
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30431
construed as they stand, it is evident that they implicate serious offences having a
bearing on a vital societal interest in securing the probity of titles to or interest in
land. Such offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but
implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime. In these circumstances,
the High Court was eminently justified in declining to quash the FIR which had been
registered under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code.
9. The factual scenario of the matter in hand is considered in the light of
aforestated proposition of law.
10. The material available on case diary reveals that the petitioners in
conspiracy with co-accused Gulrez Khan and Abdul Basit had dishonestly
induced the complainant to purchase a plot allegedly mutated in their names on
the basis of forged documents, informing death of real owner. Whereas, the
title holder Babu Khan was alive and was in possession of the plot. The
original title holder Babu Khan had submitted complaint with Revenue
authorities and the mutation in favor of Noor Jahan and Sadema Khan heirs of
Yunus Khan alias Babu Khan was set aside. The allegations contained in the
FIR cannot be treated as absurd, malafide or baseless, rather, the alleged
cognizable offence is prima facie made out. The subsequent amicable
settlement in view of consideration amount being paid to the complainant does
not absolve the petitioners of the alleged offence. At the present stage, it cannot
be said that the chances of conviction are bleak and the prosecution would be
futile exercise. It is not a case merely involving a private dispute over a land
transaction between two contesting parties. The case involves allegations of
forgery and fabrication of documents to secure title on mutation by defrauding
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30431
the public authorities, utilisation of revenue mutation procured by fraud to
effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and the deprivation
of the original title holder of his interest in land. The allegations implicate
serious offences having a bearing on a vital societal interest and faith in the
process. Therefore, to stultify the prosecution at the initial stage of
investigation in view of compromise between the parties would be an abuse of
the process of the Court. (CBI v. Maninder Singh, 2015 (9) SCALE 365, State
of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi, (2014) 15 SCC 29 and State Vs.
R. Vasanthi Stanley, AIR 2015 SC 3691 relied).
11. In view of above discussion, the Court is of considered opinion that no
case is made out for invoking inherent jurisdiction in exercise of the power u/S
528 of BNSS, 2023(Sec 482 of Cr.P.C.) to quash the impugned FIR and
prosecution.
12. Consequently, the petition, being meritless, is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh/-
SEHAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
INDORE,
2.5.4.20=900ec6fc757798eaeb3
df7a32860bd3298415a4d1c2d9
HASEE
1436213f2568c8f27da, ou=HIGH
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE,CID -
7059964, postalCode=452007,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
N
serialNumber=e7dbba955b262c
04b8413251ce7fb6f0b7dba610c
57f1559c08bf6c6f5dd40d4,
cn=SEHAR HASEEN
Date: 2025.10.16 20:12:01
+05'30'
