Ankit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25058
1 MCRC-28928-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
th
ON THE 8 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28928 of 2026
ANKIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vishalpatel - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi appearing on behalf of Advocate
General[r-1].
Shri Sudeel Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent [COMP].
Heard on:15.07.2026
Delivered On:08.09.2026
ORDER
This petition has been filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR/charge-sheet crime
No.767/2026 dated 18.05.2026 registered at police station- Lasudiya District
Indore (M.P.) for the offences punishable under sections 69 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and subsequent proceedings pending before the trial
Court.
2. As per prosecution case, the prosecutrix/respondent no.2 was
residing at a rented house at Indore since December, 2024.
Prosecutrix/respondent no.2 and petitioner/accused came into contact
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 08-09-2026
18:10:18

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25058
2 MCRC-28928-2026
through social media platform i.e. Instagram and petitioner proposed to

marry with respondent no.2. The petitioner further proposed to live together
for better understand and both started living together. The petitioner
established physical relation since November, 2025 till March, 2026,
thereafter, the petitioner left the residence on 30.03.2026 and block the
contact of respondent no.2. The prosecutrix/respondent no.2 filed a report on
18.05.2026 bearing crime No.767/2026 dated 18.05.2026 registered at police
station- Lasudiya District Indore (M.P.) for the offences punishable under
sections 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Counsel for the applicant, at the outset, has submitted that the
parties have settled their disputes out of the Court, and compromise has been
arrived between applicant and the complainant and hence, the petition for
quashment has been filed on the ground of compromise because they both
have married to each other and I.A. no.8172/2026 under Section 320(2) of
Cr.P.C., 1973/359(2) of BNSS, 2023 has been preferred for compromise.
4. Heard.
5. The factum of compromise has been verified before the Principal
Registrar of this Bench on 01.07.2026 and the same is taken on record. In
para no.3 of i.A. No.8172/2026, it is mentioned that both have married to
each other.
6. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 08-09-2026
18:10:18

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25058
3 MCRC-28928-2026
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 08-09-2026
18:10:18

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25058
4 MCRC-28928-2026
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)
7. In light of the law enunciated above and so also the fact that both
the parties i.e. the petitioner and the victim have married with each other and
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
at crime No.767/2026 dated 18.05.2026 registered at police station- Lasudiya
District Indore (M.P.) for the offences punishable under sections 69 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 08-09-2026
18:10:18

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:25058
5 MCRC-28928-2026
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and all other subsequent proceedings arising

out of the said crime number, pending against the applicant, is hereby
quashed.
8. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of on
the terms of compromise

(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT KUMAR
Signing time: 08-09-2026
18:10:18