IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 5160 of 2026 SUNIL JATAV AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Daya Nath Pandey- Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Satendra Singh Sikarwar- PP for the State.

Shri Imran Qureshi- Advocate for the respondent No.3.

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Reserved on - 05.02.2026 Delivered on - 17.02.2026 ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashment of judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26/12/2025 passed in RCT No. 28/2021 arising out of Crime No. 18/2020 registered at Police Station Pichhore, District Shivpuri, as partly modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pichhore in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2026 vide order dated 27/01/2026, and for their acquittal under Sections 498-A, 324 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of compromise.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Trial Court convicted the petitioners by judgment dated 26/12/2025. Being aggrieved, they preferred Criminal Appeal No. 16/2026 before the learned Appellate Court. During pendency of the appeal, a compromise application was filed. The learned Appellate Court partly accepted the compromise and acquitted the petitioners for offences under Sections 323/34 and 506 Part-II IPC, however, maintained the conviction under Sections 498-A, 324 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the concerned petitioners. The appeal is still pending consideration on merits before the appellate court. An application for suspension/stay of conviction preferred by petitioner No.1-Sunil has also been rejected by the Appellate Court.

The principal contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the dispute is matrimonial in nature; complainant Vidya is the wife of petitioner Sunil and the parties have amicably settled their disputes and are living together. Therefore, the continuation of conviction would adversely affect petitioner Sunil’s service as he is posted as Sub-Inspector and has been served with a show cause notice for termination. It is further argued that in view of the compromise, this Court should exercise inherent powers to quash the remaining conviction to secure ends of justice. Reliance has been placed upon Ramgopal & Anr. v. State of M.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1489/2012; Jayabai Kurmi v. State of M.P.; Hemraj v. State of M.P.; Matadin v. State of M.P.; Naveen v. State of M.P. and Hasib Khan v. State of M.P.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that the petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the conviction has already been recorded and the appeal is pending. It is contended that Section 482 Cr.P.C.

cannot be invoked to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 supported the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that the petitioners stand convicted by the Trial Court and their appeal is pending before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has already considered the compromise and partly allowed the same, acquitting the petitioners for certain minor offences, but has consciously declined to interfere with the conviction under Sections 498-A, 324 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

At this stage, it is apposite to note that once a competent criminal court has recorded a finding of guilt after full-fledged trial, the criminal proceedings culminate into a judgment. The remedy provided under the Code against such conviction is an appeal under Chapter XXIX Cr.P.C. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be ex