The High Court cannot quash FIRs related to heinous offences like rape of minors based solely on amicable settlements unless extraordinary circumstances justify such action.

ORDER :

PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.

This petition u/s 482 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the applicant/ accused for quashing FIR, bearing crime no.153/2023, offence u/s 376(1), 342 of IPC, 3/4 of POCSO Act, registered at P/S Nahar Darwaza, Distt. Dewas and all the subsequent proceedings of the criminal case.

2. As per prosecution case, the prosecutrix is minor, aged around 14 years. The prosecutrix and applicant were acquainted with each other being neighbours. On 12.05.2023 at around 03:00 AM when the prosecutrix went for nature’s call, then the applicant had caught hold her and took her to his house and committed rape upon her. After the incident the prosecutrix went to her house and narrated the incident to her family members. The matter was reported on the same day. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed and trial is pending before the Special Judge, Dewas.

3. Subsequently on the basis of amicable settlement arrived between the parties a joint compromise petition u/s 320(2) of CrPC was filed before this court and the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this court on 24.10.2024.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 2 that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they have arrived at peaceful settlement. Both of the parties are of the same caste and community are neighbours residing in the same locality. They are in love with each other and have planned to get married. It is also submitted that at present there are cordial relationship between both the parties and their family members. Therefore, continuance of the proceeding will amount to sheer wastage of valuable time of the court and will also result in harassment of the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has also admitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and prosecutrix has no objection if the FIR is quashed.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that alleged offences are not compoundable u/S 320 of CrPC except Section 342 of IPC.

7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the case diary.

8. This court vide order dated 22.10.2024 had directed both the parties to appear personally before the Principal Registrar of this court on 24.10.2024 for verification of factum of the compromise. The petitioner is in jail therefore, his presence has been marked through VC and the prosecutrix personally appeared alongwith her parents before the Principal Registrar of this court and as per the report, the matter has been amicably settled between both the parties and they have entered into compromise voluntarily without any undue influence, inducement and coercion. However, as per the verification report alleged offence are not compoundable but offence u/s 342 of IPC is compoundable u/s 320 (1) of CrPC.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Shivam alias Siddharth Vs. Officer Through P.S. Vijay Nagar And Anr. [MCRC no. 3853/ 2024], Shridhar Lal Ateriya Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. [MCRC no. 50665/ 2023] and Rohit Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. [MCRC no. 10137/ 2023].

10. In the case of Rohit (Supra), Shridhar Lal Ateriya (Supra), Shivam alias Siddharth (Supra) the coordinate bench of this court has quashed the FIR and subsequent proceeding of criminal case in likewise offences of this case.

11. In the case of Sunil Vs. State Of M.P. And Anr. [Order dated 06/03/2024 in MCRC no. 8158/ 2024] the coordinate bench of this court has held as under:-

“7. In the case of Yogendra Yadav & Ors. vs. The St