ABHINAV RAGHUWANSHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has filed this petition seeking permission to settlement/compromise under Sections 323 , 294 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(5a) of SC/ ST Act and for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.710/2019 at P.S. Guna Kotwali, District Guna with quashment of all consequential proceedings.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and hence, filed I.A.No.8051/2019 under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C stating therein that respondent/complainant does not want to further prosecute the criminal case against the petitioner-accused. The petition signed by both the parties, is supported by their affidavits with a prayer to quash the FIR pertaining to the case as stated herein above with all consequential proceedings. This Court vide its order dated 11.11.2019 sent the parties for verification and recording of statement to the Principal Registrar who after recording the statement has given the report on 11.11.2019 to the following effect;

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order passed the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in (M.Cr.C. No.8386/2013 dated 03.10.2013) Jugal Kishore Swami Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. and (M.Cr.C. No.7570/2013, decided on 11.09.2013) Hariom Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. and in the cases of Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana & another (AIR 2008 SC 1968), Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2008 SC 1969), Shiji Vs. Radhika & Another (2011) 10 SCC 705, and Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Supreme Court has laid down that even in non- compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the Court can be saved and utilized in other material cases.