IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR

ON THE 13TH OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No.11298 of 2025

RANJIT VALMIKI & ANOTHER

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Appearance:

Ms. Swati Saxena, Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Romil Verma, Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1/State.

Ms. Jaya Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

1. Present petition under section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is filed for quashing of FIR registered at Crime No.611/2023 dated 02.08.2023 at Police Station – Rajgarh, District Rajgarh(M.P.) for the offence punishable under sections 307, 34 and 120-B of IPC with all

consequential proceedings thereto.

2. The exposition of facts giving rise to present petition is as under :

Ranjit Valmiki S/o Rodji Valmiki was distressed due to matrimonial

discord with his wife Megha. Megha was living at her parental home. Petitioners – Ranjit and Arjun conspired and went to the house of Rambabu at Biaora. They took Rambabu, brother of Megha, with them to Rajgarh. Arjun caught hold of Rambabu and Ranjit assaulted Rambabu with knife on his neck. Rambabu fell down. Ranjit again assaulted Rambabu on his neck. Ranjit and Arjun escaped from the spot of incident. Rambabu informed the police by dialing 100. He was taken to a private Hospital at Rajgarh. Sub- Inspector Rahul Raghuvanshi of P.S. Kotwali, Rajgarh, District Rajgarh(M.P.) registered Dehati Nalishi at the instance of Rambabu on 02.08.2023. The medical papers of Rambabu were requisitioned. The Medical Officer opined that the injury caused on neck of Rambabu is grievous in nature. The P.S. Rajgarh registered FIR for offence punishable under Section 307 and 34 of IPC against Ranjil and Arjun. Petitioners/accused Ranjit and Arjun were apprehended. One sharp edged knife was recovered at the instance of Ranjit. The final report was submitted on completion of investigation. The trial is underway.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in addition to the facts and grounds mentioned in the petition, contends that the petitioners are falsely implicated in this matter. Learned counsel submits that the parties are close relatives. No offence, as alleged, is committed by the petitioners. Only four prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Learned counsel referring to the application i.e. I.A. No.5042/2025 filed u/S 359(2) of BNSS, 2023/320(2) of Cr.P.C. for granting permission for compromise and another I.A. No.5041/2025, an application for compromise under Section 359 of BNSS, 2023/ Section 320 of Cr.P.C. submits that matter has been amicably settled between the petitioners and the complainant/respondent no.2. The factum of compromise has duly been verified by the Principal Registrar on 07.10.2025 in compliance with the order passed by this Court on 24.09.2025. Therefore, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and contended that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners. The alleged act is brutal in nature, therefore, no ground is made out for quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings. The petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the orders of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Gopal and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 14 SCC 531 and Ananda D.V. Vs. State of M.P. and Another reported in (2021 SCC OnLine SC 3423) submits that even in non-compoundable offence, criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of compromise so that valuable time of the Court can be saved and utilized in other material cases. The parties have amicably settled their dispute so the FIR and consequential proceedings deserves to be quashed.

7. In case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303,