New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of a settlement only when the settlement is with the actual “victim” of the offence, and not merely with the person who lodged the complaint, reiterating that “victim” and “complainant/informant” are distinct concepts in criminal jurisprudence.
A Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, allowing an appeal filed by Anand Kumar @ Sanjay Lalwani, set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had refused to quash proceedings pending before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, despite a settlement between the appellant and the person whose land was allegedly usurped.
The case arose from a complaint filed in 2011 by Subhash Chandra Lalwani, alleging that the appellant and others had forged a General Power of Attorney purportedly executed by Pradeep Singh Mehta, who owned 54.48 acres of agricultural land in Bhopal, and used it to form a partnership firm, M/s Paradise Farms, into which the entire land was mutated, including 7.50 acres the complainant claimed had been given to him. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406 and 120B of the IPC, and the High Court had earlier declined to quash the complaint, finding no documentary proof that the complainant had any interest in the land.
While the matter was pending trial, Pradeep Singh Mehta filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that he had voluntarily contributed the land to the partnership, had no grievance against the appellant, and wished the proceedings quashed. The High Court’s Registrar verified the compromise as genuine and voluntary, yet the High Court dismissed the quashment petition, reasoning that Section 320 of the CrPC did not permit compounding on the basis of a settlement between the accused and a mere witness, since the complainant himself was not a party to it.
The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court had conflated compounding of an offence with quashing of proceedings on the ground of settlement, noting that the two are governed by different considerations, the former by the strict framework of Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the latter by whether continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, as explained in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.
Relying on Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra (2022) 9 SCC 321, the Court held that it is the real “victim”, meaning the person who has suffered loss or injury as defined under Section 2(y) of the BNSS, who alone can validly settle a case for the purpose of quashment, and not an informant who is a stranger to the loss. Examining the complaint, the Court found that Pradeep Singh Mehta, whose signature was allegedly forged and whose land was allegedly usurped, was unquestionably the victim, while Subhash Chandra Lalwani was, at best, a peripheral claimant to 7.50 acres who had failed to establish any documented interest in the land.
Holding that Pradeep Singh Mehta’s affidavit effectively knocked the bottom out of the prosecution’s case and that continuing the trial would serve no purpose, the Court found the dispute to be one predominantly bearing a civil flavour with commercial overtones, falling squarely within the category of cases quashable on settlement under Gian Singh.
The Court accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings in ST No. 459 of 2018 against all the accused, and held that the pending revision seeking additional charges would also not survive.
Case Title: Anand Kumar @ Sanjay Lalwani vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19051/2025
