IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 82 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

JITENDRA @ JITU SHARMA S/O SHRI MOHANLAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O VILLAGE BANDERBELA TESHIL BADNAGAR DISTT. UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI RISHI KUMAR SOLANKI, ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION BIRLAGRAM, NAGDA DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY MS. VINITA DWIVEDI, GA FOR STATE AND SHRI PRAKASH MALTARE, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)

Reserved on: 24.01.2024 Delivered on:06.02.2024 This petition was heard and the Court has pronounced the the following:

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 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 Signature Not Verified

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. As 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 Signature Not Verified 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 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.