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

th

ON THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35646 of 2024 ANOOP KUMAR JATAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

None for the petitioner.

Ms. Kalpana Parmar - Public Prosecutor for the State.

ORDER By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has been preferred by petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.97/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Lashkar, District Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including Sessions Case No.458 of 2023, on the basis of compromise.

As per prosecution story, the respondent No.2/prosecutrix appeared at the police station along with her cousin and her brother-in-law and submitted a typed written complaint alleging that the accused, Anoop Jatav, had committed rape upon her on several occasions on the false pretext of marriage. On the basis of the such allegations, the present FIR under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code has been registered against the accused.

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

Nos.16978/2024, 16978/2024 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.

In compliance of order passed by this Court dated 17.08.2024, the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, who has recorded the statements of respondent No.2/prosecutrix as well as petitioner/accused and has submitted the report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.

None for the petitioner even in the second round.

Learned Public Prosecutor for State has opposed the petition for quashing of the alleged FIR and entire consequential criminal proceedings emanating therefrom including the proceedings of Sessions Case No.458 of 2023 on the basis of the compromise, as the offences are non- compoundable and heinous as well; they are not private/personal in nature, affecting only the individuals but they have impact on the society; they are wrong to the society and as such neither the offences can be compounded nor the proceedings can be quashed on the basis of compromise.

Heard counsel for the State and perused the record.

The scope and ambit of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(now Section 528 BNSS) is well settled. Though the High Court possesses wide plenitude of powers to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of Court, such power is required to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

The Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC

303; State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688; and Parbatbhai Aahir vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641 has categorically held that heinous and serious offences of mental depravity such as murder, rape, dacoity, etc., cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, as such offences are not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society.

In Shimbhu vs. State of Haryana, (2014) 13 SCC 318 and State of M.P. vs. Madan Lal, (2015) 7 SCC 681, the Apex Court has unequivocally held that rape is a non-compoundable offence and a crime against society. Compromise between the victim and the accused cannot be a ground for quashing proceedings or for adopting a lenient approach, as such a course would be against public policy and the dignity of women This Court in the matter of Rishikesh Chandel & Others vs. State of M.P. & Another (M.Cr.C. No.52709 of 2025, decided on 09.02.2026) has held as under:

"8. The short question which requires consideration is, whether in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the FIR as well as the entire proceedings can be quashed in the cases involving