Praveen Tandiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67579
1 MCRC-23085-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
st
ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 23085 of 2026
PRAVEEN TANDIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Akanchha Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Pajapati - Panel Lawyer for respondent no.1/State.
Ms. Kriti Jain - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashment of First
Information Report bearing Crime No.512/2025 registered at Police Station
Dindori, District Dindori (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections
69, 78(1)(i), 79, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 67 and 67A of
Information Technology Act, 2000 along with all consequential criminal
proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise entered into
between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant and respondent No.2 submit that
during the pendency of the present petition, good sense prevailed over the
parties and the applicant and respondent No. 2 have arrived at an amicable
settlement and therefore, in view of the compromise entered into between the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
16:52:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67579
2 MCRC-23085-2026
parties, the aforesaid proceedings be quashed. I.A. No.18432/2026 has been

filed in this regard.
3. In compliance of order dated 06.08.2026 passed by this Court, the
matter was referred for verification of compromise and as per report dated
12.08.2026 submitted by the Registrar (Judicial-II), both the applicant and
respondent No.2 appeared in person and were duly identified by their
respective counsel. Their statements were recorded, and upon due
interaction, it has been categorically reported that the parties have amicably
resolved their dispute out of their own free will, without any coercion,
inducement or undue influence. The verification report further confirms that
the compromise is genuine, voluntary and executed with full understanding
between the parties, and the said report is taken on record.
4. Having considered the nature of allegations, the contents of FIR and
the material placed on record, this Court finds that the dispute between the
parties is essentially private and personal in nature and does not have any
overriding element of public interest. In view of the compromise arrived at
between the parties, the possibility of conviction is remote and continuation
of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has consistently
held that even non-compoundable offences of private nature can be quashed
in exercise of inherent powers to secure the ends of justice when parties have
amicably settled the dispute. In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Apex Court categorically
held that “But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominating
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
16:52:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67579
3 MCRC-23085-2026
civil favour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing,

particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile,
civil, partnership or suchlike transactions or the offences arising out of
matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is
basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression
and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing
the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with
the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be
unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the
victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is
appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.”
6. In light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the
compromise entered into between the applicant and respondent No.2 is bona
fide and deserves to be accepted.
7. Accordingly, I.A. No.18432/2026 seeking leave to compound the
offence is allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
16:52:00

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67579
4 MCRC-23085-2026
8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The FIR/Crime No.512/2025

registered at Police Station Dindori, District Dindori and all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. The applicant is
discharged from the aforesaid charges. Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
rv

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 03-09-2026
16:52:00