IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR ON THE 9TH OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10242 of 2025 SHREYANSH @ RAHUL PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashutosh Sharma advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Surendra Gupta Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

This petition under Section 528 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for quashing of FIR dated 1.10.2024 pertaining to Crime No. 538 of 2024 registered at the Police Station Mahakal, District Ujjain for offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 64(2)(m), 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. The prosecutrix aged around 40 years, reported to the Police Station Mahakal on 1.10.2024 that on previous evening she went to Ujjain to search her husband. A boy offered her lift on his motorcycle. Shreyansh (applicant) took her to hotel Shivgaura and committed rape with her. Shreyansh threatened to kill her. She informed her sister and came to report. On such allegations, the police Station Mahakal registered FIR for offence punishable under Section 64(1), 64(2)(m), 351(2) of the BNS. against Shreyansh. Applicant Shreyansh was arrested on 2.10.2024. He is in custody ever since. The final report has been submitted on completion of investigation. Later, prosecution for offence punishable under Section 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was added. The trial is underway. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has been examined. She has supported the accusation.

3. During pendency of this petition, I.A No.3630/2025 has been filed under Section 320(2) CrPC /359(2) of BNS 2023 for compounding the offence in view of compromise between the parties.

4. This Court vide order dated 15.01.2026 directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court for recording their statements and for verification of factum of compromise. The Principal Registrar submitted his report on 27.1.2026 and verified the factum of compromise.

5. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on judgment of Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Ram Gopal and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 14 SCC 531 and Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, contends that where the victim has willingly consented to nullification of criminal proceedings, it can be quashed in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. even if the offences are non compoundable. Both the parties have decided to accord a quietus to the dispute, therefore, further continuation of prosecution in this matter will be a futile exercise.

7. Per contra learned counsel for the State referring to the material on case diary opposes the petition and submits that victim was so traumatised that she could not explain the incident to the Medical Officer. The FSL examination report clearly implicated the applicant. The victim (PW-1) had supported the prosecution in her evidence before the trial Court.

8. Heard both the parties. Perused the record.

9. In matter of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, it was laid down that-

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of