##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3423

1 MCRC-19800-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 28 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19800 of 2025

ANJUL SINGH SAKHWAR

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Vijay Sundaram - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Dinesh Savita - PP for the State.

Shri Ravi Shankar Gupta - Advocate for the respondent

No.2/complainant.

Shri Mahesh Goyal - Advocate for the objector.

ORDER

The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section

482 of the CRPC seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.415/2022

registered at Police Station- Ambah, District - Morena for the offence under

Sections 363 and 376 of IPC and consequential proceedings arising thereto

on the basis of compromise.

2. It appears that parties agreed to settle the matter and therefore,

applications vide I.A. No.9633/2025 and I.A. No.9635/2025 have been

preferred at the instance of parties and they want to settle the matter. The

applications are duly signed by respective parties and same are supported by

their affidavits.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RASHID KHAN

Signing time: 1/29/2026

2:18:14 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3423

2 MCRC-19800-2025

3. The Principal Registrar of this Court has duly verified the parties,

contents of applications, intent and signatures of parties. Report is attached,

same is perused and it appears that compromise has been reached between

the parties voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioner and

respondent/complainant have married to each other and they have peacefully

settled their dispute between them and therefore, petitioner prayed

for quashing of the F.I.R. registered against him. Documents regarding

marriage of both the parties have been filed in this case. Counsel for the

petitioner has placed reliance over the judgement passed by the Supreme

Court in the case of Mahesh Mukund Patel Vs. State of U.P. and others

reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 614 and placed reliance over the judgment

dated 20.11.2025 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the

case of Wasiullah and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in support of his

submissions.

5. Counsel for the complainant argued in support of petitioners' prayer

for compromise. He referred the affidavit filed by the

respondent/complainant and submitted that they have married to each other

and they are living as husband and wife.

6. Counsel for the objector has opposed the prayer and submitted that

the petitioner, being already married, solemnized a second marriage with

respondent No.2 who is minor girl, during the subsistence of his first

marriage. Accordingly, the alleged compromise is unlawful, denied, and

cannot entitle the petitioner to any relief.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RASHID KHAN

Signing time: 1/29/2026

2:18:14 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3423

3 MCRC-19800-2025

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the

documents appended thereto.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. After hearing learned counsel for the