DINESH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered at Crime No.1306/2023 dtd. 12/12/2023, at Police Station Bhanwarkuwa, District- Indore (M.P.), for offence under Ss. 307, 452, 294 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as also all other subsequent proceedings pending in the trial court.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that on 12/12/2023 at around 11:00 P.M., when the complainant/respondent No.2-Nandini Khillari was at home and went to open the door as her father-Arvind Khillari @ Sonu was coming, but when her father alighted from the car in front of the house, at that time another car bearing registration No. MP-09-ZL-8888 came, and from which, Dinesh Malhar- the present petitioner and the other co-accused persons viz; Manoj Malhar, Umesh Malhar, Satish Shinde and Ankit Namdeo got down and started assaulting her father. and Manoj Malhar and Umesh Malhar caught hold of her father from behind, whereas Dinesh Malhar started assaulting her father with a knife and after hearing the cries of her father, her grandmother -Urmila Holkar and aunt-Shivani Khillari also came to save her father but the accused persons Satish Shinde and Ankit Namdeo also assaulted Urmila Holkar with a knife on her left hand which also started bleeding. Thereafter, her father was taken to Vishesh Jupiter hospital for treatment. After the investigation, the charge sheet has already been filed and the Sessions Trial has begun.

(3.) Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the parties are from the same vicinity, and have already compromised the matter, and have also stated on oath that the FIR was lodged on some confusion as it was dark in the night when the incident took place and names of the accused persons have been wrongly mentioned in the FIR. Counsel has also submitted that no purpose would be served to drag the matter in the trial court when the parties have already compromised the matter out of the court, as no ill will remains between them. It is further submitted that the dispute was in respect of the election only, and thus, it cannot be said that the aforesaid offence affects the public at large.