Madhya Pradesh High Court
Awadesh Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50737
1 WP-36323-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 36323 of 2025
AWADESH JAIN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manish Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vineet Singh - Government Advocate for the respondents no.1 to 3 / State.
Shri Aditya Vyas - Advocate for the respondent no. 4.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following reliefs :-
(i) That, this Hon'ble Court be kind enough to issue Notice to the Respondent State Authorities / Informant, so as to put-forth their submissions / reply / record within a stipulated time bound period.
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court be kind enough to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus / like orders / directions thereby "Quashing / Set-aside" the Impugned First Information Report Dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-01) & its Further / Future Consequential Proceedings.
(iii) That, any other writ / direction / order / command / relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.
(iv) To award the cost of the petition."
2. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that respondent no. 4 being member of a particular community has lodged an FIR in Crime No. 0228/2025 on 09.07.2025 at Police Station - Dhanora, District - Seoni Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 09-10-2025 10:31:49 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50737 2 WP-36323-2025 (M.P), for Offences Sections 296, 115 (2), 351 (2) of B.N.S 2023 & under Sec. 3 (1) (Da), 3 (1) (Gha), 3 (2) (va) of S.C/St Act against the petitioners alleging that on 08.07.2025 at about 02:30 P.M, the complainant went to see his crops where the petitioners were already present there. He complained regarding damaging of his crops due to collapse of water flow, upon which, the petitioners started abusing filthy languages, thereby saying "Saale, Gond, Gawar". You will teach us, we will kill you and then both started pelting stones and it is alleged that one stone had injured right leg and knee of the complainant. The persons present over there intervened in the matter.
3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the FIR lodged against the petitioners does not attract the provisions of SC/ST Act. Further, the dispute is regarding water flow into informant adjacent farm land not regarding caste or the respondent no. 4. The petitioners have also made a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Seoni requesting fair investigation. It is also submitted that the persons who witnessed the incident have not supported the prosecution story. It is submitted that even if the FIR versions are accepted, then also, no case under the SC/ST Act is made out against the petitioners. The inaction on the part of the respondents Police authorities, the petitioners without their fault have been made to suffer.
4. Apart from above, it is pointed out that during pendency of the investigation, the parties have entered into an amicable settlement. The case was listed before the Lok Adalat and was sent for verification of factum of compromise executed in between the parties. The factum of compromise was verified by the Registrar (J-I) and vide note sheet dated 13.09.2025 it has Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 09-10-2025 10:31:49 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50737 3 WP-36323-2025 been pointed out that the complainant wants to settle the matter out of the Court and does not wish to continue with the criminal prosecution. Thereafter, the matter has been placed before this Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 13 SCC 635 as well as in the case of Sohan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, in criminal appeal no. 948 of 2024 decided on 26.11.2024 as well as in the case of Sonu and others vs. State of Haryana and others in CRM-M-30072-2019 decided on 31.10.2022 and it is argued that once the matter has been settled between the parties, it will be a futile exercise to continue with the criminal proceedings, therefore, prays for quashment of the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
6. State counsel has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions pointing out the fact that such type of criminal cases are being got registered by the complainants making complaints regarding atrocities being done by the accused with an intention to claim monetary benefits in terms of the policy issued by the State Government under the statutory provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act') which provides for grant of compensation to the complainants when the offence under the SC/ST Act pointing out atrocities is registered. Now, the parties have entered into an amicable settlement, therefore, it is required to be verified that whether the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 09-10-2025 10:31:49 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50737 4 WP-36323-2025 complainant has been paid the compensation amount in terms of statutory provisions of the SC/ST Act or not because the report submitted does not reflect the same. It may be a case that the parties have entered into an amicable settlement and have resolved their disputes voluntarily, but the fact remains that the offence, once committed, cannot be compounded merely because the compromise executed in between the parties. The provisions of the SC/ST Act are not compoundable. However, the same can be compounded with the permission of the Court. The investigating agency is ceased with the matter, in case, no offence is found against the petitioners / accused, then closure report can be submitted by the authorities.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. It is not in dispute that an FIR has been registered at Crime No. 0228/2025 dated 9.7.2025 in Police Station Dhanora, District Seoni (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2) of B.N.S. 2023 & U/Sec. 3 (1) (Da), 3 (1) (Gha), 3 (2) (va) of SC/ ST Act against the petitioners. Initially, the writ petition was preferred seeking quashment of the FIR in question on the ground that all the witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the police authorities. During pendency of the writ petition, the complainant / victim and the wrongdoers / petitioners have amicably settled their disputes and have entered into compromise voluntarily. The allegations made in FIR are as under :-
"इसी बात पर से अवधेश जैन और अतुल जैने मुझे मां बहन क गंद गंद दये और बोले साले गोड गवार तू हमे या बतायेगा तुझे जान से ख म कर दे गे और दोनो ने मुझे प थर फकर मारे एक प थर मेरे दा हने पैर के घुटने लगा जससे मुझे चोट आई है "Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 09-10-2025 10:31:49
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50737 5 WP-36323-2025
9. The FIR clearly reflects commission of the alleged offence. Now, the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused persons like the petitioners. The stand taken by the State counsel is that such FIRs are being got registered just to take advantage of the relevant provisions of SC / ST Act which provides compensation to the complainant in such matters. The provisions are being misused by the complainant. It is required to be ascertained that whether the compensation is paid to the complainant or not in the present case, the same is not reflected from the verification report dated 13.09.2025. However, the report clearly demonstrate that the parties have amicably entered into compromise. The case laws which have been relied upon by the petitioners depict that the compromise has taken place between the parties and the same was duly verified by the competent courts i.e. the trial Courts.
10. It is argued before this Court that the matter is still pending investigation with the police authorities, therefore, they cannot directly approach the trial Court for recording of their statements.
11. The fact remains that as the matter is pending investigation with the police authorities, they are not even required to approach the Courts. It is also not divulged from the fact that whether after registration of the impugned FIR which was lodged on 9.7.2025, they have even applied for grant of bail in the matter coupled with the fact that the police authorities / investigating agency are empowered to submit closure report, if they find that no offence is committed. The offence committed under the SC / ST Act being non-compoundable, cannot be compounded as simpliciter.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 09-10-2025 10:31:49NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50737 6 WP-36323-2025
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar (supra) has considered the aspect that "the Court has to be mindful of the fact that the 1989 Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities; as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities."
13. The aforesaid makes it clear that it is a specific enactment which have a twin fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities. But looking to the fact that the provisions are being misused just to grab the monetary claim / compensation.
14. The case law which has been relied upon Sohan Singh (Supra) clearly shows that the report which was submitted by the District and Social Welfare Officer, Jalaun, clearly mentions that no compensation amount was paid to the victim. Therefore, the matter was compromised. However, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant has received any compensation amount. There is no averment in the writ petition to demonstrate that the compensation has been paid to the complainant. Even the affidavit, which is filed by the complainant, does not reflect that the complainant has received any compensation.
15. Under these circumstances, this Court does not deem it appropriate to quash the FIR on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.
16. As the police authorities are still investigating the matter, they Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 09-10-2025 10:31:49 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:50737 7 WP-36323-2025 can submit / file closure report before the trial Court or else the accused as well as the complainant can approach the trial Court for recording of their statements to ascertain the factum of compromise. The factum of grant of compensation to the complainant / victim is also required to be ascertained.
17. As the complainant has entered into a compromise with the accused, in such circumstances, the complainant will not be entitled to any compensation in view of specific provisions of the SC/ ST Act. The compromise entered into between the parties will only be acceptable, if the complainant returns the compensation amount, if any received by him.
18. This order is being passed taking into consideration the aspect that the public exchequer, from which the compensation amount is paid, cannot be permitted to be misused like this.
19. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE JP Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 09-10-2025 10:31:49