[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gopal Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6298
1 MCRC-14821-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14821 of 2023
GOPAL DHAKAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bal Krishna Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Gaurav Mishra- Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 6.
Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar - PP for the State.
ORDER
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the order dated 01.03.2023 passed in
Cr.R.No.427/2021.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant on 05.06.2009, lodged
a report stating that on the same day, in the morning at about 08.00.am,
Pratap Singh/respondent No.3, came to the petitioner over the dispute of
grazing of cattle, started quarreling with the petitioner. The matter arose, and
the respondent No.3 along with other co-accused persons/respondents No. 2
to 6 herein, with common intention brought wooden sticks, iron rods and
other weapons and started committing marpeet with the petitioner and his
father. The father of the petitioner and petitioner himself was brutally beaten
by the respondents No.2 to 6. When, mother and wife of the present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6298
2 MCRC-14821-2023
petitioner, came to intervene and save them, the respondents No. 2 to 6
committed marpeet with them also. The present petitioner, his father, mother
and wife, all sustained injuries in the aforesaid incident. Accordingly,
offence under Section 324, 147, 148, 149, 323 of IPC and Section 325 of IPC
was registered against the respondents No. 2 to 6 at Crime No.97/2009 at
P.S. Pohari, District Shivpuri. Subsequently, the respondents No. 2 to 6 were
convicted by the competent trial court. They preferred the appeal, which was
dismissed and the order of conviction of the respondents No. 2 to 6 was
affirmed. Thereafter, the respondents No. 2 to 6 preferred a Criminal
Revision before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated
01.03.2023 on the basis of compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instant petition
has been preferred to recall the order dated 01.03.2023 on the basis that the
wrong facts presented before this Court. All the injured persons were not
present before the Court to assert the factum of compromise. But, the
aforesaid Criminal Revision was disposed of and the accused persons were
set free of the charges on the basis of compromise, only on the basis of the
averments advanced by the counsel for respondent No.2. Even, respondent
No.2, therein, was also not present on 01.03.2023, before the Court. As
referred above, there were totally four injured persons but, none of them was
present before this Court and on the basis of the wrong facts, the accused
persons have availed the benefit of being discharged of all the charges.
Hence, the instant may be allowed and the order dated 01.03.2023 passed in
Cr.R. No.427/2021 be called.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6298
3 MCRC-14821-2023
Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 6, opposed the prayer and
prayed for its rejection by submitting that it is just abuse of process of law.
Once, the court has passed an order considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case, then no case for review/recall is made out. The
petitioner, just to exert undue pressure and avail some mischieveous benefit,
is again agitating the matter.
Learned counsel for the State also opposed the prayer and prayed for
its rejection.
Heard counsel for the rival parties and perused the entire record.
The present petition has been filed on the ground that the compromise
was accepted without the presence and verification of all the injured persons
and that incorrect facts were placed before the Court.
Now, the primary question before this Court for adjudication is that
whether this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., can recall its earlier order dated 01.03.2023, which was passed on
the basis of compromise, when it is demonstrated that the compromise was
neither genuine nor properly verified?
It is settled that criminal courts do not possess power of review as
provided under Section 362 Cr.P.C. However, recall of an order obtained by
fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts stands on a different
footing.
In State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar , (2011) 14 SCC 770,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that fraud vitiates every solemn act and an
order obtained by fraud is a nullity in the eyes of law.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6298
4 MCRC-14821-2023
Similarly, in Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. , (1996) 5
SCC 550, it was held that courts possess inherent powers to recall their
order, if it is obtained by practicing fraud upon the court.
In Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb , (1999) 4 SCC 396, the Apex Court
recognized the distinction between "review" and "recall" and held that recall
is permissible where the order is passed without jurisdiction or by
suppression of material facts.
Further, in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak , (1988) 2 SCC 602, it was
observed that no court can allow its process to be abused and it has inherent
power to correct an order passed under a mistake or misrepresentation.
Thus, though Section 362 Cr.P.C. bars review, it does not take away
the inherent power of recall in cases where the order has been procured by
fraud or where fundamental procedural requirements were not satisfied.
The compromise forming the basis of quashing or compounding must
be voluntary, genuine and duly verified.
I n Gian Singh v. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that compromise must be genuine and not the result of
coercion or undue influence.
Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466, the
Apex Court laid down guidelines requiring the Court to satisfy itself about
the voluntariness and authenticity of compromise before granting relief.
In the present case, admittedly there were four injured persons. It has
been specifically pleaded that none of the injured persons was present before
this Court when the revision was disposed of on 01.03.2023. Even
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6298
5 MCRC-14821-2023
respondent No.2, who allegedly entered into compromise, was not personally
present. There is nothing on record to indicate that the compromise was
verified by the Registrar (Judicial) or that statements of the injured persons
were recorded. Thus, the foundational requirement for accepting compromise
was not satisfied.
From perusal of the record, it appears that the offences included
Section 325 IPC (grievous hurt). The accused persons were already
convicted by two courts. The compromise was not verified through personal
appearance of all injured persons. There is no material indicating judicial
satisfaction regarding genuineness of compromise. Acceptance of
compromise without ensuring the presence and consent of all injured victims
amounts to serious procedural irregularity and strikes at the root of the order
dated 01.03.2023. An order passed on incomplete or incorrect factual
premise cannot be allowed to stand. The principle that fraud vitiates all
judicial acts squarely applies. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
are meant to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure ends of justice.
If the order dated 01.03.2023 is allowed to remain, it would result in grave
miscarriage of justice to the injured persons who were never heard.
In view of the settled legal position laid down in Indian Bank v.
Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb Gian Singh v.
State of Punjab Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the order dated 01.03.2023 passed in Cr.R.
No.427/2021 was passed without proper verification of compromise and on
the basis of incomplete factual presentation. Accordingly, the present
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6298
6 MCRC-14821-2023
petition deserves to be allowed.
Hence, The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The order
dated 01.03.2023 passed in Cr.R. No.427/2021 is hereby recalled. Criminal
Revision No.427/2021 is restored to its original number for hearing on
merits.
However, another facts remains to be noted that in the light of the
order dated 01.03.2023, passed in Cr.R. No.427/2021, another case Cr.A.
No.2099/2021 ( Brajmohan Dhakad Vs. Gopal Dhakad and others) was also
disposed of [ dismissed as withdrawn], vide order dated 01.03.2023 [ on the
same day]. Therefore, this Court while exercising its power vested under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. also deems it fit and in the interest of justice to
recall the order dated 01.03.2023 passed in Cr.A. No.2099/2021.
Accordingly, order dated 01.03.2023 passed in Cr.A. No.2099/2021
also stands recalled.
The Registry is directed to list both the aforementioned cases for
hearing before appropriate Bench/s as per roster/s.
No order as to costs.
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
JUDGE
Vishal
