IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45395 of 2025 DASRATH @ DASHRAT SINGH KUWHWAH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anand Purohit - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Mohit Shivhare - Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State. Shri Hari Krishan Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the respondent [R-2].

ORDER By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has been preferred by petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 207/2025 registered at Police Station Madhoganj District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 64 of BNS and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and entire consequential criminal proceedings emanating therefrom including Case No. 93/2025. 2. From perusal of facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that FIR was registered on 02.07.2025 at the instance of prosecutrix alleging that the petitioner has committed rape upon the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage. Now petitioner and prosecutrix had married to each other and prosecutrix is living in her household peacefully. Therefore, this petition has been preferred.

3. Alongwith the petition, both the parties have filed I.A.

No.21197/2025 and IA No.21198/2025 stating therein that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they have entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further.

4. In compliance of order passed by this Court, the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, who has recorded the statements of complainant/respondent No.2 as well as petitioner - accused and has submitted the report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.

5. Fact remains that petitioner and respondent No.2 are married couple and both are living in same household. It is regular and easy to be retributive but at the same time a Judge has to sublimely feel the pulse of the case. One cannot forget that "Every "F I L E" with same alphabets, contains a "L I F E". (See : In Re State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pankaj Mishra , 2021 SCC OnLine MP 5480 and Geeta Paliwal and others Vs. Sitaram and others reported as 2023 SCC Online MP 811.)

6. Here "FILE" before this Court carries not only a "LIFE" but many LIVES.

7. In view of the above, it would be apposite to survey the law in respect of compounding in non-compoundable case. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the the provisions of section 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C held that the compounding can he permitted in a non-compoundable offence.

Relevant part of the order of the order reads as under :-

"Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same 2 thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit