JUDGMENT

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 15.10.2023 registered bearing Crime No.329/2022, at Police Station Bilgram, Nagda District Ujjain under sections 376, 450, 506 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and the consequent proceedings arising out of it.

3. As per the prosecution story, the complainant has lodged an FIR that 25.10.2023, at about 12:55PM, the prosecutrix was at her maternal home, her father was on duty, she was staying at home with her one year's child and minor brother then, the applicant who is relative of the prosecutrix, came to her house. When the prosecutrix was feeding to her son, the applicant sent her brother out of the home to carry some Samose, then the applicant closed the door from inside, caught hand of the prosecutrix, forced her to lay on bed and committed rape upon her forcefully against her will. The applicant threatened her to kill her family members if she disclose the incident to anyone. When her brother came, the applicant fled away from the spot. Hence, the police has lodged the FIR against the petitioner.

4. It is submitted by both parties that during pendencey of the case, they have settled their dispute amicably and filed the compromise application before this Court.

5. A s per the compromise application, 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 is 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 Ramgopal & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in CRA No.1489/2012 as well as on the judgments of coordinate Bench of this Court passed in MCRC No.30563/2023 (Champalal v. State of M.P. & Anr.), WP No.27218/2023 (Sunil Dixit v. State of M.P. & Anr.), MCRC No.38432/2023 (Gopal v. State of M.P. & Anr.), MCRC No.17409/2023 (Lalit Silkigar v. State of M.P. & Others), MCRC No.790/2023 (Rahul Choudhary v. State of MP & Anr), MCRC No.2625/2023 (Ajay Batham v. State of M.P. & Anr.), MCRC No.43007/2023 (Manjit Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Anr.) & in MCRC No.478919/2023 (Deepak v. 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 v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narender Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(2014) 6 SCC 466], State of Madhya Pradesh v. Madanlal [(2015) 7 SCC 681] & State of M.P. v. 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 and the law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. (supra) placed reliance by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the case is not related to the offence under section 376 of IPC but rather it is related only to the offence punishable under section 294, 323, 326 read with section 34 of IPC. Hence, the same shall not be attracted in the present case and is distinguishable on basis of different facts.

13