IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

th

ON THE 6 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28084 of 2023

NAVEEN MISHRA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Manish Datt - Senior Advocate along with Shri Rohan Awasthi -

Advocate appeared for the petitioner.

Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

Shri Satyendra Jyotishi - Advocate for respondent No.2.

ORDER Considering the seriousness of offence under Section 376 of IPC and keeping in mind though initially some serious allegations are leveled against the petitioner Naveen Mishra. It seems that parties have entered into amicable compromise and affidavit filed by the prosecutrix/victim as well as present petitioner Naveen Mishra is also filed along with the application for compromise.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.235/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 & 376(2)(n) of IPC registered at Police Station - Omti,

District- Jabalpur and all proceedings arising thereto.

When the matter is called, it is pointed out that there is an application

for compromise i.e. I.A.No.30608/2025, which is signed by both the parties, who are essentially petitioner and victim. They are having relationship and pursuant to the complaint under Section 376 of IPC, which is filed by the lady/victim, the present proceedings initiated by the petitioner as well as

victim.

Court is conscious about the fact that there is seriousness of the allegation at the same point of time. It transpired that when the parties now entered into amicable settlement and at the time of trial, no fruitful out come can be expected in view of this development.

Therefore, considering the powers vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and also considering the element of genuine settlement between the parties and more particularly, parties were present on earlier occasion and today also, the petitioner is present before the Court and affidavit is also filed by both the parties.

I am of the view that continuation of the proceedings pursuant to the said FIR will amount to file trial exercise. In view of the certain development, therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and considering larger interest of the parties, I am of the view that powers should be exercise by quashing proceedings initiated pursuant to impugned FIR.

In view of the order passed in MCRC No.28084/2023 (Naveen Mishra Vs. The State of M.P. and Others) and MCRC No.27172/2023 (Victim Vs. The State of M.P. and Others), the consideration of the same become nearly academic as the proceedings are pursuant to the FIR is already quashed. Therefore, consideration of application for cancellation of bail will not be required.

The present dispute is between the two parties and considering the nature of allegations which are not found against the interest of the society, in view of the decisions rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, the relevant portion is mentioned as under :-

" 24. The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputes between themselves and buried the hatchet. Not only this, they say that since they are neighbours, they want to live like good neighbours and that was the reason for restoring friendly ties. In such a scenario, should the court give its imprimatur to such a settlement. The answer depends on various incidental aspects which need serious discourse. The Legislators has categorically recognized that those offences which are covered by the provisions of section 320 of the Code are concededly those not only do not fall within the category of heinous crime but also which are personal between the parties. Therefore, this provision recognizes whereas there is a compromise between the parties the Court is to act at the sai