ORDER :

1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioners for quashment of the FIR dated 12.07.2023 registered bearing Crime No.1142/2023, at Police Station Banganga, District Indore, under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC and the consequent proceedings arising out of it.

3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant has lodged an FIR that the prosecutrix is living separately from her husband and indulged in the work of sewing. The petitioner, who is a builder has called her regarding a flat. On his call, she met him and after becoming aware from the flats, she returned to her home. Further, the petitioner has called her to finalize the deal of flat. On 13.06.2023, he called her to see his flats and in this sequence, he has taken her to a hotel, after some time, the petitioner take her in a room and close the door and thereafter, he made physical relations with her forcibly without her consent. When she declined, the petitioner threatened her that he will kill her son. Hence, the police has lodged the FIR against the petitioners.

4. It is submitted by both parties that during pendencey of the case, they have settled their dispute amicably. This Court, vide order dated 29.11.2023, sent the record before the Principal Registrar of this Court for verification of the compromise between the petitioners and complainant/respondent no.2.

5. As per the verification report dated 08.12.2023 received from the Principal Registrar, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and filed applications for compromise vide I.A. No.17992/2023. As per report, both parties have entered into compromise with their mutual consent, they arrived at compromise voluntarily without any inducement or coercion.

6. Learned counsels for both the parties have submitted that since there is no dispute remaining between them, the proceedings of criminal case may be quashed by this Court by using extraordinary powers enshrined under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. Per contra, counsel for the State has controverted the contentions of counsel for the petitioner and contended that since the offence is related to Section 376 of IPC, which is non-compoundable, cannot be permitted to be compromised by this Court by using extraordinary powers enshrined under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as it an offence against public interest.

8. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and Others. vs. Radhika and Anr. [AIR 2012 SC 499], Kapil Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi [AIR ONLINE 2022 SC 1300] and on the judgments of co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in MCRC No.30563/2023 (Champalal vs. State of M.P. & Anr.), WP No.27218/2023 (Sunil Dixit vs. State of M.P. & Anr.), MCRC No.38432/2023 (Gopal vs. State of M.P. & Anr.), MCRC No.17409/2023 (Lalit Silkigar vs. State of M.P. & Others), MCRC No.790/2023 (Rahul Choudhary vs. State of MP & Anr), MCRC No.2625/2023 (Ajay Batham vs. State of M.P. & Anr.), MCRC No.43007/2023 (Manjit Singh & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Anr.) & in MCRC No.478919/2023 (Deepak vs. State of M.P. & Anr.).

9. In turn, counsel for the State opposing the petition, has also placed reliance over the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narender Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2014) 6 SCC 466] , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal [(2015) 7 SCC 681] & State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [(2019) 5 SCC 688].

10. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the judgments referred by counsel for parties.

11. From the face of report, it is clear that the offence under sections 376 IPC is non-compoundable.

12. Now, coming to the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner, on this aspect, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kapil Gupta (supra) is worth referring wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court after cons