IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54630 of 2025 NEETESH RAGHUWANSHI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sushil Goswami - Advocate for the petitioner.

Smt. Ankita Mathur - PP for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Sanjay Dwivedi - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

ORDER With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of the criminal proceedings vide Crime No.377/2018 registered at Police Station - Basoda, District Vidisha for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)N of IPC and Section 5L/6 of the POCSO Act and consequential proceedings arising thereto on the basis of compromise.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the parties filed the applications vide I.As. No.24986/2025 and 24987/2025 for settlement of the dispute on the basis of compromise because marriage has been solemnized between the prosecutrix at Arya Samaj Mandir, Bhagirathpura, Indore and petitioner and prosecutrix wants to settle her dispute on her own volition. Marriage certified issued by Arya Samaj Mandir is attached to the petition. The aforesaid applications were sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of this Court. The accused and the complainant along with their counsel appeared before the Registrar. On verification, he submitted that the compromise has been arrived between the parties without any pressure, duress or coercion and the parties have entered into compromise willingly.

4. Counsel for the complainant argued in support of petitioners' prayer for compromise. He referred the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2/complainant and he is ready to settle the matter.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. A Lean Compromise is better than a Fat Law Suit, instant efforts of the parties indicate the same. It is expected that their bonafide gestures would continue.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana & another, AIR 2008 SC 1968, Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji Vs. Radhika & Another, (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 4 SCC 675, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Parbatbhai Ahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, laid down that even in non- compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be quashed so that valuable time of the court can be saved and utilized in other material cases.

8. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.394-395 of 2021 passed in the case of Ananda D.V. v. State & another on 12.04.2021 wherein, in similar circumstances, the order of the High Court rejecting the petition for quashment of the FIR was set aside, and the FIR was quashed; and which judgment has also been relied upon by this Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.43974/2021 (Shubham @ Lala s/o Shri Gopichand Thakur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another) order dated 29.09.2021. Thus, it is submitted that the FIR in the present case be also quashed as also the further proceedings of the Crime No.416/2024 registered at Police Station - Civil Line, District Morena.

9. The order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananda D.V.

v. State & another (supra) reads, as under:

"These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 14.11.2019 and

30.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition Criminal Nos. 2382 of 2019 and 287 of 2020 respectively, whereby the High Court rejected the criminal writ petitions for quashing of FIR No. 455 of 2013 dated 17.09.2013 in respect of offence registered