Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19731 seeking quashment of FIR for the offences, abduction from public spot, assault and making false video with self-incriminating words under threat, based on the compromise between the parties, especially considering the nature and gravity of the offences alleged, a single-judge bench of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., refused to quash the FIR and held that the offences alleged were serious and against societal interest, thus not fit for quashment on the basis of compromise.
In the instant matter, on 11-03-2025, at around 07:30 AM, the complainant was present with his friends near Shiv Temple, Sagartal when a white Glanza vehicle without registration approached them with accused persons siting inside. One of the accused asked the complainant to sit in the car under the pretense of talking with one of the accused.
Upon refusal, the complainant was forcibly taken via Shankarpur Stadium to Tighara Road, where he was threatened at gunpoint and demanded a ransom of Rs. 5 lakhs. Upon his plea of inability to pay, he was assaulted, and Rs. 16,000/- was extorted via Google Pay. Furthermore, he was coerced into holding a pistol while a video was recorded, where he was made to state he came to kill one of the accused and gave the money voluntarily.
The accused allegedly threatened to circulate the video unless he paid an additional Rs. 4,84,000/-. The complainant was later taken home by friends due to injury and unconsciousness, and he reported the incident to his father the next morning. A FIR was filed at Police Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 127(2), 115(2), 296 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Th Court noted, “if the entire FIR is read, then not only it is a case where complainant was abducted but he was assaulted by butt of the pistol.” The Court emphasised the gravity of compelling the complainant to make self-incriminatory videos under duress. The Court observed, “abduction from a public place and then assaulting him by the butt of pistol and thereafter preparing a false video containing some self-incriminating admissions… cannot be said to be an offence which is not heinous or not against the society.”
The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 and held that the nature of allegations in this case is such that they are not private in nature but affect the larger interest of society and hence, compromise cannot form the basis for quashing the FIR.
The Court held that the offences alleged were serious and against societal interest, thus not fit for quashment on the basis of compromise and dismissed the application.
[Sourav Gurjar v. State of M.P., M.Cr.C No. 14536 of 2025, Decided on 04-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Dhirendra Singh Niranjan, Counsel for the Applicants
Shri Mohit Shivhare, Public Prosecutor, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Shri Hotam Singh Rathore, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
