Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR, J
Sanjay Bankda @ Gaurav Garg – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 39084/2024
Quashment - Criminal Proceedings - CrPC Section 482 - The court discussed the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, emphasizing that such powers can quash FIRs even in non-compoundable cases if it serves justice or prevents abuse of process, but must be exercised cautiously.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an FIR for cheating and forgery based on a compromise with the complainant, who alleged that the petitioner sold a non-existent plot. The complainant later accepted an alternate plot offered by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of cheating were prima facie established, and the compromise did not constitute a bona fide resolution of the criminal charges. Quashing the FIR would be an abuse of the legal process.
Issues: Whether the FIR can be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC based on a compromise between the parties in a case involving serious allegations of cheating.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that inherent powers under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly, especially in cases involving serious offences, and that a mere compromise does not justify quashing the FIR when allegations are substantiated.
Final Decision: The petition under Section 482 of CrPC is dismissed.
ORDER
1. This petition under Section 482 of CrPC is filed by petitioner seeking quashment of FIR pertaining to Crime No. 350/2024 registered at P S. - Kanadiya, Indore, District- Indore for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 34 of IPC with all consequential proceedings thereto, on the ground of compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. The exposition of facts, giving rise to present petition, is as under:
i) Respondent no. 2 /Kamal Agrawal S/o Sundarlal Agrawal submitted a written complaint to SHO, Police Station – Kanadiya, Indore, inter-alia alleging that cheating and forgery against petitioner- Sanjay Bankda @ Gaurav Garg. It is stated in the complaint that Sanjay Bankda @ Gaurav Garg S/o Radheshyam Garg proposed to sell him a plot no. 136-A of Rooprekha Nagar Housing Co-operative Society, Indore. Sanjay Bankda @ Gaurav Garg informed him that plot no. 136-A was transferred to Sadhana W/o Chetan Laad vide registered sale deed dated 04th February, 1997. Sadhana Laad sold the alleged plot vide registered sale deed dated 07th July, 2002 to Monika W/o Brajesh Bhatia, who executed power of attorney on 25/04/2007 in favour of Amit S/o Chandragapaji Chandak. Sanjay Bankda @ Gaurav Garg provided him all relevant documents and got registered sale deed of plot no. 136-A executed in his favour on 10th March, 2008. He came to know that the Additional Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Indore has prohibited of sale of plot no. 136-A vide order dated 15/07/2022. When he contacted Sanjay Bankda @ Gaurav Garg, he promised him to give him another plot. Sanjay Bankda @ Gaurav Garg, Monika Bhatia and Amit Chandak have executed sale deed of plot no. 136-A in his favour, which is not in existence. When he asked Sanjay Bankda @ Gaurav Garg for clarification, he started abusing him in filthy language and threatened to kill him. Sanjay Bankda @ Gaurav Garg and Amit Chandak have chearted him of Rs. 45 lacs. The complaint was enquired. After inquiry, Police Station- Kanadiya, Indore registered FIR at Crime no. 350/2024 for the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 and 34 of IPC against Sanjay Bankda @ Gaurav Garg, Monika Bhatia, Amit Chandak and Sadhana Laad and one other.
ii) During Investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Relevant documents were seized. The approved map of Town & Country Planning reveals that plot no. 136-A was not in existence in the approved map. The Investigation is underway.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sanjay Bankda @ Gaurav Garg and respondent no. 2 Kamal Agrawal contend that the alleged dispute is with regard to location and boundary of the plot, which has been given a color of criminal prosecution for cheating. Both the parties have amicably settled the dispute. An alternate plot no. 250 has been provided to the complainant. The complainant does not wish to pursue the prosecution further, therefore, compromise between the parties may be executed and the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings may be quashed.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2/complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise between the parties.
5. The learned counsel for parties contend that in view of law laid down in cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the criminal proceedings can be quashed even in non- compoundable cases on the basis of compromise so that valuable time of the Court can be saved and utilized in other material cases.
6. This Court vide order dated 06/09/2024 had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for recording their statements and for verification of factum of compromise. The Principal Registrar has submitted his report on 06/09/2024 and verified the factum of compromise.
7. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the Case Diary as well as documents available on record.
8. The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
