[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaurav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
1 MCRC-12022-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12022 of 2026
GAURAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Karunanidhi Bundela - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Veer Bahadur, learned counsel for the respondent /complainant.
Shri Mayur Gulati - PL for the State.
ORDER
This miscellaneous criminal case has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.472/2023 registered at Police
Station-TT Nagar, District-Bhopal for the offence under Sections 307, 147, 148,
149, 294, & 323 of IPC as well as the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant, Devesh Vidua, S/o
Purushottam Vidua, aged about 41 years, resident of H. No. 136, SAGE Heritage,
Bawadia Kala, Bhopal, appeared at the police station along with Puneet Dwivedi
and Himanshu Singh and lodged a verbal report stating that he is engaged in
business and resides at the aforesaid address. He further stated that on 03.08.2023,
he had lodged an FIR under Sections 420, 384, and 120-B IPC against Sonu
Pachori and his associates at Police Station Crime Branch, Bhopal. Thereafter,
while returning home, he received a call from ASI Zuber Ahmed of the Crime
Branch, who sought information regarding the address and whereabouts of Sonu
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
2 MCRC-12022-2026
Pachori. The complainant informed him that he could पहचान (identify) the vehicle
of Sonu Pachori and would provide details upon locating him. At about 12:00 a.m.
on 04.08.2023, when the complainant, along with Puneet Dwivedi and Himanshu
Singh, reached Mata Mandir intersection, they spotted Sonu Pachori seated in a
white-colored car bearing registration No. MP04ZJ8536. The complainant
immediately informed ASI Zuber Ahmed, who instructed them to follow the
vehicle and continuously update its location. Accordingly, the complainant and his
companions followed the said vehicle through Roshanpura Chauraha, VIP Road,
Lalghati, and Hamidia Road towards Bhopal Railway Station, while regularly
informing the Crime Branch. The police officials indicated that they would arrive
within 10-15 minutes and directed them to continue the pursuit. Upon reaching
Bhopal Talkies, a Crime Branch vehicle also joined in the pursuit. Subsequently,
at about 12:30 a.m., near Platinum Plaza, Mata Mandir, the complainant's vehicle,
along with the Crime Branch vehicle, stopped behind the said car. At that time,
Ashwini Sharma, Prateek Joshi, and other associates of Sonu Pachori were present
there, allegedly armed with weapons. It is alleged that as soon as the complainant
and Puneet Dwivedi alighted from their vehicle, Sonu Pachori and Ashwini
Sharma fired at them with an intention to kill; however, the complainant escaped
unhurt as he ducked and the shot missed. Thereafter, Sonu Pachori, Gaurav
Pachori, Ashwini Sharma, Prateek Joshi, and other associates allegedly assaulted
the complainant and his companions with fists, kicks, and the butts of firearms,
while abusing them in filthy language. Despite the arrival of Crime Branch
personnel, the assailants continued the assault for some time and thereafter fled
towards the parking area. The complainant sustained injuries, and Puneet Dwivedi
suffered injuries on the right side of his face and right hand. On the basis of the
said report, an FIR was registered at Police Station T.T. Nagar, Bhopal, against the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
3 MCRC-12022-2026
present petitioner and other accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, parties
have compromised the matter and the same has been duly verified by the
Registrar-J (II). Therefore, it is urged that FIR bearing 472/2023 registered at
Police Station-TT Nagar, District-Bhopal for the offence under Sections 307, 147,
148, 149, 294, & 323 of IPC as well as the consequential proceedings arising
therefrom may be quashed. It is also submitted that the dispute is essentially
personal and private in nature, no grievous injuries have been found to the
complainant. Initially, there is a civil dispute between the parties, which has been
settled between the parties and no dispute remains between them and they are
living together and actually they are friends and just on the said ground, it is urged
that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed in view of the compromise
arrived at between the parties and FIR relating to crime no.472/2023 registered at
PS. TT Nagar, Bhopal be quashed. It is also submitted that FIR has been lodged in
the year, 2023 after a lapse of three years and investigation is not completed by the
investigation Agency and prima facie, no offence is made out against the
petitioner and a false and frivolous case has been registered against the petitioner
without any basis. Therefore, it has been prayed that the petition filed by the
petitioner be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has supports the factum of
compromise and he has no objection, if the aforesaid case be quashed.
6. Heard. Perused record of the case.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs.
State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held as under:-
33. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
4 MCRC-12022-2026
registered under Section 307/324/323/34 IPC. Investigation
was completed, whereafter challan was presented in the court
against the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed;
the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At this
juncture, parties entered into compromise on the basis of
which petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed by
the petitioners namely the accused persons for quashing of
the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. As per the copy
of the settlement which was annexed along with the petition,
the compromise took place between the parties on 12.7.2013
when respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a
meeting under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated that
on the intervention of the said persons/Panchayat, both the
parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to
live with peace in future with each other. It was argued that
since the parties have decided to keep harmony between the
parties so that in future they are able to live with peace and
love and they are the residents of the same village, the High
Court should have accepted the said compromise and quash
the proceedings.
35. 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 up till now, which could not be finalized".
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. We,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
5 MCRC-12022-2026
taking all these factors into consideration cumulatively, are
of the opinion that the compromise between the parties be
accepted and the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR
No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with Police Station
LOPOKE, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order
accordingly.
8. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Naushey Ali
Vs. State of UP (SLP) (CrL).No.3432 of 2023 decided on 11.02.2025 has held as
under:-
"20. We are also inclined to conclude that considering the overall
circumstances, the nature of the weapon and the nature of the injury
(fracture of the head of distal phalanx of left ring finger), the offence
alleged, on facts, does not fall in that category of cases where the court
should deny relief in the event of a settlement. At the highest, the
offence alleged could be one under Section 326 of IPC. It could not be
said, on facts, considering all the circumstances that this is a crime
which has such an harmful effect on the public and that it has the effect
of seriously threatening the well-being of the society. We make it clear
that we are saying so on the facts of the present case. We are also firmly
of the opinion that proceeding with the trial, when parties have
amicably resolved the dispute in the present case, would be futile and
the ends of justice require that the settlement be given effect to by
quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse of process to let
this trial remain pending under the above circumstances, particularly
when the dispute is settled and resolved.
22. "In Ramgopal v. State of M.P, (2022) 14 SCC 531 , Surya Kant, J.
speaking for this court, in a case involving a charge under Section 326
IPC, while annulling the proceedings, felicitously set out the statement
of law and applied it to the facts of the said case as under:
"19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320
CrPC where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise
between the parties in respect of offences "compoundable"
within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power
enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 CrPC or
vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution,
can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320
CrPC. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide
amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of
quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:
19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of
the society;
19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any;
19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused
and the victim; and
19.4 Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
6 MCRC-12022-2026
20. Having appraised the aforestated parameters and
weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke powers
under Article 142 and quash the criminal proceedings and
consequently set aside the conviction in both the appeals. We
say so for the reasons that:
20.1. Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can
be categorised as purely personal or having overtones of
criminal proceedings of private nature.
20.2. Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the
appellants have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their
mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a
serious nature that quashing of which would override public
interest.
20.3. Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it
is immaterial that the trial against the appellants had been
concluded or their appeal(s) against conviction stand
dismissed.
20.4. Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any
coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have
buried their differences and wish to accord a quietus to their
dispute(s).
20.5. Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place
way back in the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is
nothing on record to evince that either before or after the
purported compromise, any untoward incident transpired
between the parties.
20.6. Sixthly, since the appellants and the complainant(s) are
residents of the same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity,
the quashing of criminal proceedings will advance peace,
harmony, and fellowship amongst the parties who have
decided to forget and forgive any ill will and have no
vengeance against each other.
20.7. Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal
justice system would remain un-effected on acceptance of the
amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant
acquittal of the appellants; more so looking at their present
age."
24. In view of the above, we allow the Appeal. The order of the High
Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1315 of 2023 dated
19.01.2023 shall stand set aside and proceeding in Complaint Case No.
8023 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 248 of 1991 pending in the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Moradabad
shall stand quashed."
9. Evidently, parties have entered into a compromise, which has been duly
verified by Registrar (J-II). Hence, in view of compromise between the parties and
in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble The Apex Court in the case of Narinder
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (Supra) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that even non-compoundable offence like 307 of IPC, the FIR and proceedings can
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
7 MCRC-12022-2026
be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., if the
dispute is essentially private/personal in nature and the parties have generally
settled the matter and continuation of the proceedings would be abuse of process of
law. It is further settled that Court must examine nature of injuries, weapon used
and overall facts before quashing the FIR. In the case of Naushey Ali Vs. State of
UP (supra). In this judgment, the Supreme Court has mentioned about section 307
of IPC does not bar pressing on the basis of compromise, the Court must examine
whether the offences is actually made out from the fact and it has also examined
whether the dispute is private or personal in nature and injuries are not grievous in
nature, therefore, proceedings can be quashed to secure the ends of justice.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that that the case under Section 307 of IPC,
criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of compromise where the
dispute is personal in nature and the allegations do not disclose grave offence
affecting the society and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of
process of law. When this case is examined in the light of principles laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court, no injuries have been found to the complainant and
dispute in this case is private and personal in nature and accused persons i.e
petitioners and complainant both are local and earlier dispute is civil in nature,
which has been settled by the parties and since 3 years, investigation has not been
concluded by the investigation agency.
10. This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions and has perused the material available on record, it is not in dispute
that the parties have amicably resolved their inter se dispute and have decided to
put a quietus to the matter. The compromise appears to be voluntary, genuine and
without any coercion or undue influence. The scope and ambit of the inherent
powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., in the context of quashing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
8 MCRC-12022-2026
of criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, is no longer res integra. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab has authoritatively
held that even in cases involving non-compoundable offences; like under Section
307 of IPC, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash the
proceedings if the dispute is predominantly private in nature and continuation of
proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. At the same time, the Apex
Court has cautioned that such power is to be exercised with due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence.
11. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would
not only be an exercise in futility but would also amount to abuse of the process of
law, particularly when the victim/complainant is no longer interested in supporting
the prosecution. Rather, it would be in the interest of justice to give effect to the
settlement and bring an end to the litigation between the parties.
12. Accordingly, in exercise of the inherent powers conferred under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court deems it appropriate to quash the impugned
FIR No.472/2023 registered at Police Station-TT Nagar, District-Bhopal for the
offence under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, & 323 of IPC as well as the
consequential proceedings therefrom so as to secure the ends of justice. The FIR
bearing No.472/2023 is hereby quashed.
13. With the aforesaid, petition is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
Hashmi
