Each act of cheating constitutes a separate offence requiring individual FIR registrations.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 17 OF MAY, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19360 of 2024 SMT ARTI ARYA W/O SHRI MANOJ KUMAR ARYA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

None for the applicant.

Mr. Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the State.

ORDER This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of F.I.R. in Crime Number 429/2017 registered at Police Station - Gola ka Mandir, District - Gwalior for offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120 (B) of I.P.C.

2. I.A. No. 9252/2024 was filed for quashment of proceedings on the basis of compromise.

3. This court by order dated 21.11.2024 directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 26.11.2024 for verification of factum of compromise. The Principal Registrar has submitted his report from which it appears that Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Santosh Sharma, and Jeevaram Sharma had appeared and have stated that they have voluntarily compromised with the applicant.

4. Considered the verification report submitted by the Principal Signature Not Verified Registrar of this Court.

5. The chargesheet has been placed on record according to which, following persons were cheated by the applicant;- Santosh Sharma, Rajendra Sharma, Girraj Singh, Dhawal Singh, Saurav Singh, ShrikrishnaPal Singh, Archana Yadav, Jagdish Sharma, Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Nishant Sharma, and H.S. Ludele, whereas only three persons have stated that they have compromised the matter.

6. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that merely because three persons out of eleven persons have compromised, then the F.I.R. as well as the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.

7. This Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Goyal Vs. State of M.P. and Others reported in ILR (2020) M.P. 522 has held as under:-

"16. The 3 Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India reported in (2002) 2 SCC 210 has held as under:

60. As regards the issue of a single offence, we are afraid that the fact situation of the matters under consideration would not permit to lend any credence to such a submission. Each individual deposit agreement shall have to be treated as a separate and individual transaction brought about by the allurement of the financial companies, since the parties are different, the amount of deposit is different as also the period for which the deposit was effected. It has all the characteristics of independent transactions and we do not see any compelling reason to hold it otherwise. The plea as raised also cannot have our concurrence.

17. Another 3 Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal reported in (2002) 8 SCC 158 has held as under:

6. On a query being raised by this Court, the learned counsel for the respondent sought to rely on Sections 218 and 220 CrPC in an effort to justify his plea for the consolidation of the cases. Mr. Bali submitted that because of the proviso to Section 218, even where there are distinct offences being tried the Magistrate can direct that the same be tried together. In our opinion, proviso to Section 218 would apply only in such a case where the distinct offences for which the accused is Signature Not Verified charged are being tried before the same Magistrate. In the instant case, offences were being tried before different Magistrates and proviso to Section 218 cannot give any single Magistrate the power to order transfer of cases to him from different Magistrates or courts. Even Section 220 does not help the respondent as that applies where any one series of acts are so connected together as to form the same transaction and where more than one offence is committed, there can be a joint trial.

7. In the present case, d