Madhya Pradesh High Court
MCRC/9047/2016 of SHUBHAM GOLIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMAON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9047 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
1.SHUBHAM GOLIYA S/O SHRI HARSWAROOPGOLIYA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:BUSINESS 3/6, STAFF QUARTER, SGSITS COLLEGE,INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)GOLIYA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:BUSINESS 3/6, STAFF QUARTER, SGSITS COLLEGE,INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.SHASHANK GOLIA S/O SHRI HARSWAROOPGOLIYA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:BUSINESS 3/6, STAFF QUARTER , SGSITSCOLLEGE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)GOLIYA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION:BUSINESS 3/6, STAFF QUARTER , SGSITSCOLLEGE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.HITESH JAISWAL S/O SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRAJAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:BUSINESS 857-D, RAJIV AWAS VIHAR INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCCUPATION:BUSINESS 857-D, RAJIV AWAS VIHAR INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI KHILADI LAL GANGORE - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONERS
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATIONHOUSE OFFICER THRU. P.S. TUKOGANJ, INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)HOUSE OFFICER THRU. P.S. TUKOGANJ, INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.ANKUSH S/O SHRI PAWAN PANCHOLIA JAINOCCUPATION: BUSINESS 127, ANURAG NAGARINDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 127, ANURAG NAGARINDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - PANEL LAWYER)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for order this day, th e court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 30.08.2016 passed bythe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore allowing an application under Section156(3) of the Code, 1973 filed by respondent No.2 and directing for registrationof FIR against them.
2. During pendency of this petition, petitioners as well as respondentNo.2 have entered into a compromise and have jointly filed an applicationbearing I.A. No.10280 of 2022 for recording of compromise between them. Onthe said application, parties were directed to appear before the PrincipalRegistrar of this Court on 16.02.2023. The parties appeared before the PrincipalRegistrar as directed and stated that they have entered into the compromisevoluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion and they have resolvedtheir dispute with mutual consent. The Principal Registrar of this Court by orderdated 16.02.2023 has also verified the factum of the compromise.
3. The present proceedings arise out of a private complaint filed byrespondent No.2 under Section 156(3) of the Code, 1973. During pendency thepetitioner and respondent No.2 have entered into a compromise and it isapparent that they have resolved all their dispute pending between them. Theoffences alleged against the petitioner were primarily related to the action ofrespondent No.2. In view of the compromise between the parties, the disputebetween them which was personal in nature has been put to an end.
4. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that thecompromise entered into between the parties vide I.A. No.10280 of 2022deserves to be and is accordingly accepted.
5. As a consequence the petition is also allowed and the order dated30.08.2016 passed by the Court below directing for registration of FIR againstthe petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470, 471/34 of the IPC is set aside.
jyoti
(PRANAY VERMA)JUDGE