The court emphasized the importance of evaluating the severity of economic offences and the public interest in determining the appropriateness of quashing FIRs, especially in light of ongoing investigations.

ORDER :

Rajendra Kumar Vani, J.

The Investigation Officer- Shri Upendra Dubey, Town Inspector of PS Indergarh, District Datia is present in person

2. Since both the petitions are arising out of same FIR, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

3. These petitions, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, have been filed for quashing the FIR bearing Crime No.322/2023 registered at Police Station- Bhander, District Datia for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 294, 506 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings arising out of it on the basis of compromise.

4. In M.Cr.C. No. 43192/2024, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has entered into compromise with respondent No.2/complainant Rajkishor. The statement of petitioner as well as respondent No.2 have been recorded before the Principal Registrar of this Court and after the verification, the report has been submitted. It is submitted that the statements of witnesses did not reveal the name of present petitioner. It is also submitted that seven witnesses whose statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C are attached with the supplementary challan filed against the petitioner have not been named in the witness list. No overt act of the petitioner is revealed from the supplementary challan filed by the prosecution. Therefore, prays for quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise.

5. In M.Cr.C. No.37011/2024, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially Badam Singh, Satish Rajput, Somil Singh Rajput and Raj Kishor had levelled allegations against present petitioner and they have entered into compromise with petitioner – Dusyant Yadav. Their statements have been recorded before the Principal Registrar of this Court and the report has been submitted. Compromise has been duly verified by the Principal Registrar. As far as other witnesses are concerned, they have been examined later on on 19.11.2024. The investigation is carried out in a faulty manner. Under these circumstances, he prays for quashment of the F.I.R. on the basis of compromise against the petitioner.

6. Counsel for petitioners have also relied upon the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.35880/2024 ( Sandeep Singh Chouhan Vs. State of M.P. ), order dated 24.09.2024 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.15622/2024 (Badan Singh Shakya and others Vs. the State of M.P. & Others), order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.32207/2024 ( Ramkumra Inawati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh ), order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.32124/2024 ( Ramkumra Inawati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh ) and order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.32213/2024 ( Ramkumra Inawati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh )

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer on the ground that the victims in this case are all those persons from whom account details/bank kit have been received by the present petitioners and other co-accused and thereafter misused their bank accounts which reveals from the statements of other witnesses also which have been filed. Therefore, the victims Rohit @ Banti Prajapati, Bharat @ Vinay, Malkhan Ahirwar, Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Akash Prajapati, Kamlendra Rajpoot, Ashish Rajpoot, Anand Rajpoot and Ajeet Singh Rajpoot have not filed compromise with the present petitioners. Moreover the investigation is going on. It is submitt