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

nd

ON THE 2 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 220 of 2026 ANIL PAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Romesh Pratap Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms Anjalai Gyanani Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2].

ORDER By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has been preferred by petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.227/2022 registered at Police Station Pandokhar, District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and section 3, 4, 5 (j) (ii), 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom.

2. Alongwith the petition, both the parties have filed I.A. Nos.59/2026 and 60/2026 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. It is further submitted that petitioner and respondent No. 2 are presently living together as husband and wife. They have solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals and two children have been born out of this marriage, aged about 1 year 12 months and 1 month respectively.

3. In compliance of order dated 9.1.2026 passed by this Court, the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, who has recorded the statements of respondents No.2 as well as petitioner and has submitted the report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.

4. 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 K. Bharthi Devi and Another v. State of Telangana and Another, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 384 has held as under:

"33. It could thus be seen that the learned three- Judge Bench of this Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 held that B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma vs. State, (2008) 16 SCC 1 were correctly decided.

34. It has been held that there are certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, the High Court would be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, even if the offences have not been made compoundable."

5. 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 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