Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashwin Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
1 MCRC-34878-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34878 of 2024
ASHWIN SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Karunanidhi Bundela - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sundaram Singh, learned counsel for the objector.
Mr. Veer Bahadur, learned counsel for the complainant.
Shri Mayur Gulati - PL for the State.
ORDER
This miscellaneous criminal case has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.472/2023 registered at
Police Station-TT Nagar, District-Bhopal for the offence under Sections 307,
147, 148, 149, 294, & 323 of IPC as well as the consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant, Devesh Vidua,
S/o Purushottam Vidua, aged about 41 years, resident of H. No. 136, SAGE
Heritage, Bawadia Kala, Bhopal, appeared at the police station along with
Puneet Dwivedi and Himanshu Singh and lodged a verbal report stating that
he is engaged in business and resides at the aforesaid address. He further
stated that on 03.08.2023, he had lodged an FIR under Sections 420, 384, and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 06-04-2026
16:38:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
2 MCRC-34878-2024
120-B IPC against Sonu Pachori and his associates at Police Station Crime
Branch, Bhopal. Thereafter, while returning home, he received a call from
ASI Zuber Ahmed of the Crime Branch, who sought information regarding
the address and whereabouts of Sonu Pachori. The complainant informed
him that he could पहचान (identify) the vehicle of Sonu Pachori and would
provide details upon locating him. At about 12:00 a.m. on 04.08.2023, when
the complainant, along with Puneet Dwivedi and Himanshu Singh, reached
Mata Mandir intersection, they spotted Sonu Pachori seated in a white-
colored car bearing registration No. MP04ZJ8536. The complainant
immediately informed ASI Zuber Ahmed, who instructed them to follow the
vehicle and continuously update its location. Accordingly, the complainant
and his companions followed the said vehicle through Roshanpura Chauraha,
VIP Road, Lalghati, and Hamidia Road towards Bhopal Railway Station,
while regularly informing the Crime Branch. The police officials indicated
that they would arrive within 10-15 minutes and directed them to continue
the pursuit. Upon reaching Bhopal Talkies, a Crime Branch vehicle also
joined in the pursuit. Subsequently, at about 12:30 a.m., near Platinum Plaza,
Mata Mandir, the complainant’s vehicle, along with the Crime Branch
vehicle, stopped behind the said car. At that time, Ashwini Sharma, Prateek
Joshi, and other associates of Sonu Pachori were present there, allegedly
armed with weapons. It is alleged that as soon as the complainant and Puneet
Dwivedi alighted from their vehicle, Sonu Pachori and Ashwini Sharma fired
at them with an intention to kill; however, the complainant escaped unhurt as
he ducked and the shot missed. Thereafter, Sonu Pachori, Gaurav Pachori,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 06-04-2026
16:38:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
3 MCRC-34878-2024
Ashwini Sharma, Prateek Joshi, and other associates allegedly assaulted the
complainant and his companions with fists, kicks, and the butts of firearms,
while abusing them in filthy language. Despite the arrival of Crime Branch
personnel, the assailants continued the assault for some time and thereafter
fled towards the parking area. The complainant sustained injuries, and Puneet
Dwivedi suffered injuries on the right side of his face and right hand. On the
basis of the said report, an FIR was registered at Police Station T.T. Nagar,
Bhopal, against the present petitioner and other accused persons.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case,
parties have compromised the matter and the same has been duly verified by
the Registrar-J (II). Therefore, it is urged that FIR bearing 472/2023
registered at Police Station-TT Nagar, District-Bhopal for the offence under
Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, & 323 of IPC as well as the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom may be quashed. It is also submitted that the
dispute is essentially personal and private in nature, no grievous injuries have
been found to the complainant. Initially, there is a civil dispute between the
parties, which has been settled between the parties and no dispute remains
between them and they are living together and actually they are friends and
just on the said ground, it is urged that the petition filed by the petitioner be
allowed in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and FIR
relating to crime no.472/2023 registered at PS. TT Nagar, Bhopal be
quashed. It is also submitted that FIR has been lodged in the year, 2023 after
a lapse of three years and investigation is not completed by the investigation
Agency and prima facie, no offence is made out against the petitioner and a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 06-04-2026
16:38:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
4 MCRC-34878-2024
false and frivolous case has been registered against the petitioner without any
basis. Therefore, it has been prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner be
allowed and to please handover/release the licenced weapon i.e. pistol to the
petitioner in his favour on supurdginama.
4 . Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has supports the factum of
compromise and he has no objection, if the aforesaid case be quashed.
6. Heard. Perused record of the case.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh and
Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held as under:-
33. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010
was registered under Section 307/324/323/34 IPC.
Investigation was completed, whereafter challan was
presented in the court against the petitioner herein.
Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage
of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties
entered into compromise on the basis of which petition
under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the
petitioners namely the accused persons for quashing of
the criminal proceedings under the said FIR. As per the
copy of the settlement which was annexed along with
the petition, the compromise took place between the
parties on 12.7.2013 when respectable members of the
Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the Chairmanship
of Sarpanch. It is stated that on the intervention of the
said persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for
compromise and have also decided to live with peace in
future with each other. It was argued that since the
parties have decided to keep harmony between the
parties so that in future they are able to live with peace
and love and they are the residents of the same village,
the High Court should have accepted the said
compromise and quash the proceedings.
35. We have gone through the FIR as well which was
recorded on the basis of statement of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 06-04-2026
16:38:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
5 MCRC-34878-2024
complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the
complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused
persons because of some previous dispute between the
parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in
detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on
record viz., “respectable persons have been trying for a
compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”.
This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there
have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid
purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In
this context when we find that the elders of the village,
including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the
parties have not only buried their hatchet but have
decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an
important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in
the Court. It has not even started. In view of
compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance
of the witnesses coming forward in support of the
prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can
still be established by producing the doctor as witness
who conducted medical examination, it may become
difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The
chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It
would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these
proceedings. We, taking all these factors into
consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the
compromise between the parties be accepted and the
criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.121 dated
14.7.2010 registered with Police Station LOPOKE,
District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order
accordingly.
8. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of Naushey
Ali Vs. State of UP (SLP) (CrL).No.3432 of 2023 decided on 11.02.2025 has
held as under:-
“20. We are also inclined to conclude that considering the overall
circumstances, the nature of the weapon and the nature of the
injury (fracture of the head of distal phalanx of left ring finger),
the offence alleged, on facts, does not fall in that category of cases
where the court should deny relief in the event of a settlement. At
the highest, the offence alleged could be one under Section 326 ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 06-04-2026
16:38:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:263496 MCRC-34878-2024
IPC. It could not be said, on facts, considering all the
circumstances that this is a crime which has such an harmful effect
on the public and that it has the effect of seriously threatening the
well-being of the society. We make it clear that we are saying so
on the facts of the present case. We are also firmly of the opinion
that proceeding with the trial, when parties have amicably resolved
the dispute in the present case, would be futile and the ends of
justice require that the settlement be given effect to by quashing
the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse of process to let this
trial remain pending under the above circumstances, particularly
when the dispute is settled and resolved.
22. “In Ramgopal v. State of M.P, (2022) 14 SCC 531 , Surya
Kant, J. speaking for this court, in a case involving a charge under
Section 326 IPC, while annulling the proceedings, felicitously set
out the statement of law and applied it to the facts of the said case
as under:
“19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to
Section 320 CrPC where the Court is squarely guided
by the compromise between the parties in respect of
offences “compoundable” within the statutory
framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a
High Court under Section 482 CrPC or vested in this
Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be
invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320
CrPC. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of
wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the
context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in
mind:
19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience
of the society;
19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any;
19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between the
accused and the victim; and
19.4 Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after
the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other
relevant considerations.
20. Having appraised the aforestated parameters and
weighing upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the two appeals before us, we are inclined to invoke
powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal
proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction
in both the appeals. We say so for the reasons that:
20.1. Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these
appeals can be categorised as purely personal or having
overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature.
20.2. Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for
which the appellants have been convicted, do not appear
to exhibit their mental depravity or commission of an
offence of such a serious nature that quashing of which
would override public interest.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 06-04-2026
16:38:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
7 MCRC-34878-2024
20.3. Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and
injuries, it is immaterial that the trial against the
appellants had been concluded or their appeal(s) against
conviction stand dismissed.
20.4. Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without
any coercion or compulsion, willingly and voluntarily
have buried their differences and wish to accord a
quietus to their dispute(s).
20.5. Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took
place way back in the years 2000 and 1995,
respectively. There is nothing on record to evince that
either before or after the purported compromise, any
untoward incident transpired between the parties.
20.6. Sixthly, since the appellants and the
complainant(s) are residents of the same village(s)
and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of criminal
proceedings will advance peace, harmony, and
fellowship amongst the parties who have decided to
forget and forgive any ill will and have no vengeance
against each other.
20.7. Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal
justice system would remain un-effected on acceptance
of the amicable settlement between the parties and/or
resultant acquittal of the appellants; more so looking at
their present age.”
24. In view of the above, we allow the Appeal. The order of the
High Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1315 of
2023 dated 19.01.2023 shall stand set aside and proceeding in
Complaint Case No. 8023 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No.
248 of 1991 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 5, Moradabad shall stand quashed.”
9. Evidently, parties have entered into a compromise, which has been
duly verified by Registrar (J-II). Hence, in view of compromise between the
parties and in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble The Apex Court in the
case of Narinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (Supra) The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that even non-compoundable offence like 307 of
IPC, the FIR and proceedings can be quashed in exercise of inherent powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., if the dispute is essentially private/personal in
nature and the parties have generally settled the matter and continuation of
the proceedings would be abuse of process of law. It is further settled that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 06-04-2026
16:38:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
8 MCRC-34878-2024
Court must examine nature of injuries, weapon used and overall facts before
quashing the FIR. In the case of Naushey Ali Vs. State of UP (supra). In this
judgment, the Supreme Court has mentioned about section 307 of IPC does
not bar pressing on the basis of compromise, the Court must examine
whether the offences is actually made out from the fact and it has also
examined whether the dispute is private or personal in nature and injuries are
not grievous in nature, therefore, proceedings can be quashed to secure the
ends of justice. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that that the case under
Section 307 of IPC, criminal proceedings may be quashed on the basis of
compromise where the dispute is personal in nature and the allegations do
not disclose grave offence affecting the society and continuation of
proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. When this case is
examined in the light of principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, no
injuries have been found to the complainant and dispute in this case is
private and personal in nature and accused persons i.e petitioners and
complainant both are local and earlier dispute is civil in nature, which has
been settled by the parties and since 3 years, investigation has not been
concluded by the investigation agency.
10 This Court has given its thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions and has perused the material available on record, it is not in
dispute that the parties have amicably resolved their inter se dispute and have
decided to put a quietus to the matter. The compromise appears to be
voluntary, genuine and without any coercion or undue influence. The scope
and ambit of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 06-04-2026
16:38:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
9 MCRC-34878-2024
Cr.P.C., in the context of quashing of criminal proceedings on the basis of
compromise, is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab has authoritatively held that even in cases
involving non-compoundable offences; like under section 307 of IPC, the
High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings if the
dispute is predominantly private in nature and continuation of proceedings
would amount to abuse of process of law. At the same time, the Apex Court
has cautioned that such power is to be exercised with due regard to the nature
and gravity of the offence.
11. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings
would not only be an exercise in futility but would also amount to abuse of
the process of law, particularly when the victim/complainant is no longer
interested in supporting the prosecution. Rather, it would be in the interest of
justice to give effect to the settlement and bring an end to the litigation
between the parties.
12. Accordingly, in exercise of the inherent powers conferred under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court deems it appropriate to quash the
impugned FIR No.472/2023 registered at Police Station-TT Nagar, District-
Bhopal for the offence under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, & 323 of
IPC as well as the consequential proceedings therefrom so as to secure the
ends of justice. The FIR bearing no.472/2023 is hereby quashed. However, it
is also directed to the concerned SHO/Competent Authority to release
/handover the licenced weapon i.e Pistol and licence to the petitioner.
13. With the aforesaid, petition is allowed and disposed off
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 06-04-2026
16:38:16
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26349
10 MCRC-34878-2024
accordingly.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
Hashmi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: S HUSHMAT
HUSSAIN
Signing time: 06-04-2026
16:38:16