High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 09 MP CK 0284

Dalveer vs State of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 6 September 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Sharma, J
CASE NUMBER
M. Cr. C. No. 6670 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 404 words

Anil Sharma, Judge

1.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 09-08-2012 passed by learned trial Court

whereby the application filed u/s 320 of Cr.P.C. by the both the parties has been dismissed and further prayer has been made in this petition to

permit the parties to compound the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that initially complainant/respondent No. 2 has lodged an

FIR at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior against the petitioners on a dispute of encashing the demand draft which belongs to respondent

No. 2, however after sometime good sense prevailed between the parties and they have entered into a compromise. He further submits that

wrongly the name of complainant has been mentioned as Sishupal Singh Yadav while the correct name of complainant is Sishupal Singh.

2.

The application u/s 320 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by both the parties before learned trial Court and the prayer has been made to compound the

matter but since the offences in which the compromise has been sought are not compoundable, therefore, learned trial Court has rejected the

application of both the parties. By invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court both the parties have appeared and intended to compound the

matter.

3.

In support of arguments and further to strengthen the case, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of Shiji alias Pappu

and others Vs. Radhika and another, (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101 in which the case for offence u/s 394 of IPC has been compounded in compromise.

Further reliance has been placed on the decision of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969 in which the offence u/s 406

of IPC has been compounded. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court has inherent power u/s 482 to compound the

offence involved in the present case.

4.

In the light of above observations and for the foregoing reasons, I allow the petition and quash the S.T. No. 99/2012 pending before learned

Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC. In the result, the proceedings of

aforesaid session trial are quashed and petitioners are discharged from the offence under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC. A copy of this order

be sent to the trial court concerned for information and compliance.