Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 988 (MP)

Rajkumar v. State Of M. P.

2020-10-01

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Vandana Kasrekar, J. - Respondent No.2 Ajay Singh Parmar is present in person. Heard on I.A.No.6652/2020, which is an application for compromise. Both the parties have come before this Court on the ground that they have settled their dispute amicably and prays for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.317/2019 registered at Police Station - Kotwali, District -Rajgarh under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. 2. During pendency of the petition, both the parties have arrived at a compromise and filed a written compromise on I.A.No.6652/2020 before this Court for permission to compromise and also for recording the compromise. Both the parties have entered into a compromise without any threat, inducement and coercion from either side they have amicably settled the dispute and admitted that they have voluntarily entered into compromise. 3. XXX XXX XXX 4. It is submitted that the matter pertains to offence registered against the applicant under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. of the IPC. Now both the parties have amicably settled the matter and the complainant has no more grievance against the applicant. 5. In the matter of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana and another, (2003) 4 SCC 675 whereby the Apex Court has held that Section 320 of Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect inherent powers of High Court granted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and in cases of matrimonial disputes if the application is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint, the same can be quashed. Hon'ble the Apex Court has reiterated the view in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 466 , Rajiv Saxena and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2012) 3 SCC(Cri) 327 and Yogendra Yadav and others vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2014) 9 SCC 653 . 6. Considering the report of the Principal Registrar that the parties have arrived at a compromise and the complainant do not have any grievance with the applicant, I find that the petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. FIR bearing Crime No.317/2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District -Rajgarh under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. against the present petitioner is hereby quashed. 7. XXX XXX XXX 8. FIR bearing Crime No.317/2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District -Rajgarh under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 of the I.P.C. against the present petitioner is hereby quashed. 7. XXX XXX XXX 8. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed to the extent herein above indicated. 9. Bail bond, if any, submitted by the applicant shall stands discharged. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court for compliance. C.C. as per rules.