Rajesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30325
1 MCRC-16552-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16552 of 2024
CNR No.: MPHC020129462024
RAJESH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Rajesh Yadav - Advocate for the petitioners.
Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent .
Prashant Jain appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 has been preferred seeking quashment of FIR registered at Crime No.
38/2024 at Police Station- Bhairavgarh, District Ujjain (MP) for the offence
punishable under sections 498A, 506, 34 of the IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act & all subsequent proceedings against the petitioners.
2. According to the prosecution, the complainant Monika Thakur alleged
that after her marriage with co-accused Yash Thakur on 15.12.2022, her husband,
mother-in-law and father-in-law started harassing her for dowry and demanding
20,00,000. It is further alleged that her husband physically assaulted her and
₹
that she was driven out of her matrimonial home for non-fulfilment of the
demand. Despite repeated efforts by the complainant and her family members,
the accused persons allegedly refused to take her back without dowry and
threatened to kill her if the demand was not fulfilled. Accordingly, Crime No.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
7:17:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30325
2 MCRC-16552-2024
38/2024 was registered at Police Station Bhairavgarh, District Ujjain (M.P.), for

offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The present petition has been preferred on the ground that the parties have
amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise through I.A.
No.12946/2026.
4. The compromise application filed through I.A. No.12946/2026 has been
duly verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court vide report dated 12.10.2026.
5. The Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012)
10 SCC 303 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. This Court, highlighting the difference, had the following to say:-
“53. 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
ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal
of indictment.
54. Where the High Court quashes a criminal
proceeding having regard to the fact that the
dispute between the offender and the victim has
been settled although the offences are not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
7:17:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30325
3 MCRC-16552-2024
compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,
continuation of criminal proceedings will be an
exercise in futility and justice in the case demands
that the dispute between the parties is put to an end
and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice
being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt,
crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the
public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously
endangers and threatens the well-being of the
society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer
only because he and the victim have settled the
dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid
compensation, yet certain crimes have been made
compoundable in law, with or without the
permission of the court. In respect of serious
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other
offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences
of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in
that capacity, the settlement between the offender
and the victim can have no legal sanction at all.
However, 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 the family dispute, where
the wrong is basically to the victim and the
offender and the victim have settled all disputes
between them amicably, irrespective of the fact
that such offences have not been made
compoundable, the High Court may within the
framework of its inherent power, quash the
criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR
if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement,
there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being
convicted and by not quashing the criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of
justice shall be defeated. The above list is
illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will
depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast
category can be prescribed.”

(Emphasis supplied)
6. In light of the law enunciated above and so also the fact that both the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
7:17:01 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30325
4 MCRC-16552-2024
parties entered into compromise and has been amicably resolved and respondent

No.2 has no objection to quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.
Hence no purpose would be served to dis-allow such compromise and to meet the
ends of justice, the present MCRC stands allowed and the FIR lodged as Crime
No. 38/2024 at Police Station- Bhairavgarh, District Ujjain (MP) for the offence
punishable under sections 498A, 506, 34 of the IPC and section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the said crime
number, pending against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of on the
terms of compromise.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
VS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARSHA SINGH
Signing time: 28-Oct-26
7:17:01 PM