[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Singhania vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20072
1 MCRC-9690-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9690 of 2026
RAHUL SINGHANIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Singh Chouhan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sudhakar Mani Patel - Panel Lawyer for respondent no.1/State.
Shri Ravi Sen - Advocate for respondent no.2.
ORDER
Present petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under section 528 of
BNSS, 2023 for quashment of FIR registered as Crime No.04/2016 and
criminal trial bearing RCT No.902/2018 pending in the Court of 16th District
and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal (P.S.Cyber Crime Vs. Rahul
Singhania and another).
2. The present petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the
petitioner has settled the dispute with respondent no.2/complainant upon
whose complaint, the case was registered against the petitioner and co-
accused. A joint application (I.A.No.5732/2026) was moved on behalf of
petitioner and respondent no.2/complainant bringing the facts on record and
this Court by order dated 11.03.2026 directed the parties to appear before
Registrar (Judicial-II) at 2:30 pm. for verification of compromise. Registrar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20072
2 MCRC-9690-2026
(Judicial-II) after verification submitted his report dated 11.03.2026 wherein
he has verified the factum of compromise after recording the statement of
petitioner and respondent no.2/complainant by observing that the parties
have entered into compromise with free will and volition and without any
threat and inducement. The factum of compromise has been duly verified by
the Registrar (Judicial-II). Offences are not compoundable. Hence, the
petition has been filed under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashment of
FIR and criminal proceedings on the ground of compromise qua the present
petitioner.
3. The Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and
another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that in appropriate case
High Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
for the purpose of quashment of FIR and further criminal proceedings on the
ground of compromise, if any public interest is not involved and offence is
not heinous. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced hereinunder:-
"61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus: 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 F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20072
3 MCRC-9690-2026
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 serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like 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 pre-dominatingly civil flavour
stand on 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 parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this
category of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if
in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and
victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put 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 wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends
of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an end and if
the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High
Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding."
4 . The parties are present before this Court today. The petitioner has
been identified by Mr.Gaurav Singh Chouhan, Advocate, who is appearing
on behalf of petitioner and respondent no.2 has been identified by Mr. Ravi
Sen, Advocate, who is appearing on behalf of respondent no.2. Parties have
accepted that they entered into the compromise and settled the dispute.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20072
4 MCRC-9690-2026
5 . Counsel appearing for the complainant submits that he does not
want to continue the criminal case pending against the petitioner. He accepts
the factum of compromise before this Court. From perusal of the FIR, it
appears that FIR was lodged on the allegations of cheating and forgery with
the respondent no.2/complainant only. No public interest is involved in the
present case and the crime is not heinous.
6. Considering the verification report and the fact that the parties have
settled their dispute, present petition is allowed.
7 . Crime No.04/2016, registered at Police Station, Cyber Crime,
Bhopal and further proceedings of Sessions Trial No.902/2018 pending in
the Court of 16 th District and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal is hereby
quashed qua the present petitioner Rahul Singhania. The proceedings shall
continue against other co-accused.
8. A copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Police Station
as well as to the trial court.
9. With the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
TG /-
