Gaurav Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89599
1 MCRC-30071-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
nd
ON THE 2 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30071 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010459592025
GAURAV SONI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Kumar Soni - Advocate for petitioners.
Smt. Ranjana Agnihotri - Dy. GA for respondent No.1/State.
Ms. C.Veda Rao - Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS
for quashment of FIR and consequential criminal proceedings in relation to Crime
No.185/2023 registered at Police Station Garha, District Jabalpur for commission
of offence punishable under Sections 323, 354-A, 377 and 498-A of IPC and under
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.
2. On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the parties
have filed I.A. No.22164/2026, which is an application for compromise under
Section 359 of BNSS r/w 320(2) of Cr.P.C.
3. The facts of the case are that marriage of respondent No.2/complainant
Smt. Aparna Soni was solemnized with petitioner No.1 Gaurav Soni as per Hindu
rites and customs on 07.12.2021. Petitioners No.2 is father-in-law and petitioner
No.3 is the mother-in-law of the respondent No.2/complainant. It is alleged that the
petitioners have tortured and harassed the deceased regarding demand of dowry.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 04-11-2026
16:14:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89599
2 MCRC-30071-2025
4. The respondent No.2 has lodged an FIR bearing Crime No.185/2023

registered at Police Station Garha, District Jabalpur against the petitioners for the
offence punishable under Sections 323, 354-A, 377, 498-A of IPC and under
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. This petition has been filed for quashment
of F.I.R. and consequential criminal proceeding under Section 528 of BNSS.
During pendency of this petition, both the parties filed an application I.A.
No.22164/2026 under Section 359 of BNSS r/w 320(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking
compromise before this Court.
5. The parties have amicably settled their differences by way of mutual
settlement. Pursuant to the same, parties were directed to appear before the
Registrar (J-II) for verifying the genuineness and correctness of the compromise on
12.10.2026.
6. On 14.10.2026, parties appeared before the Registrar (J-II) who recorded
the statements of petitioners as well as respondent no.2. Both the parties have
supported the factum of amicable settlement between them. They entered into
compromise without any threat, inducement or pressure with the applicant.
Registrar (J-II) in his report has mentioned that compromise appears to be genuine
and authentic. Parties have been duly identified by their counsel.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the case of Jitendra
Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuwanshi & Anr. passed in Criminal
Appeal No.447/2013 vide judgment dated 15.03.2013 by the Supreme Court,
Jagdish Channa and others vs. State of Haryana & Anr. AIR 2008 SC 1968 ,
Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab - AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji vs. Radhika
and another - (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab-
(2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303 have submitted that criminal proceedings arising out of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 04-11-2026
16:14:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89599
3 MCRC-30071-2025
matrimonial disputes can be quashed by the Court, if the Court is satisfied that the

matter has been settled between the parties amicably.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. In this case, petitioner No.1 - Gaurav Soni is the husband of respondent
No.2 Smt. Aparna Soni. Therefore, against the husband, offence under Section 377
of IPC is not made out as it is well settled by the decision passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench on 03.12.2024 in M.Cr.C. No.8370/2023 in the case of Dicky
RAm Tiwari and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, Umang
Singhar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 21.09.2023 in M.Cr.C.
No.59600/2022, X Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another passed in SLP (Crl.)
No.14467/2023, Manish Sahu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh decided on 01.05.2024
in M.Cr.C. No.8388/2023 and Sunny Kant Vs The State NCT of Delhi decided on
13.05.2025 in Crl. Rev.P.990/2024. Therefore, criminal proceedings under Section
377 of IPC against petitioner No.1 is quashed.
10. It is not in dispute that on the case in hand, subsequent to filing of
criminal case under Sections 498A of IPC and Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a
compromise/settlement and pursuant thereto, filed the said compromise before this
Court with a request to take the same on record and to drop the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners herein. It is also not in dispute that respondent
No.2/complainant before the Registrar (J-II) has stated that she has entered into the
compromise and did not wish to pursue criminal proceedings against the
petitioners and fully supported the contents of the compromise application.
11. In the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court
held as under:-
"9. Learned counsel for the parties, by drawing our attention
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 04-11-2026
16:14:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89599
4 MCRC-30071-2025
to the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State
of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, submitted that in
an identical circumstance, this Court held that the High Court
in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 can quash
criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the
dispute is entirely private and the parties are willing to settle
their disputes amicably. It is not in dispute that the facts in
B.S. Joshi (supra) are identical and the nature of the offence
and the question of law involved are almost similar to the one
in hand. After considering the law laid down in State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and
explaining the decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye vs. State
of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Surendra Nath Mohanty
& Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238 and Pepsi
Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.,
(1998) 5 SCC 749, this Court held:
"8. ... We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of
securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes
necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of
power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case
whether to exercise or not such a power. Considering
matrimonial matters, this Court also held:
"12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are
evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine
settlements of matrimonial disputes."
10) As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of a
complaint in respect of the offences punishable under Sections
498A and 406 of IPC, the parties, in the instant case, arrived
at a mutual settlement and the complainant also has sworn an
affidavit supporting the stand of the appellants. That was the
position before the trial Court as well as before the High Court
in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. A perusal of
the impugned order of the High Court shows that because the
mutual settlement arrived at between the parties relate to non-
compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a wrong
premise that it cannot be compounded and dismissed the
petition filed under Section 482. A perusal of the petition
before the High Court shows that the application filed by the
appellants was not for compounding of non-compoundable
offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal
proceedings.
11) The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482
of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 04-11-2026
16:14:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89599
5 MCRC-30071-2025
Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section
482 to quash criminal proceedings where dispute is of a
private nature and a compromise is entered into between the
parties who are willing to settle their differences amicably.
We are satisfied that the said decision is directly applicable to
the case on hand and the High Court ought to have quashed
the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement arrived
at.
12) In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly,
when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the
offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial
disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties have settled
the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for
the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the
Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing
of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.
10. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High
Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal
proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order
to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does
not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section
482 of the Code."
12. In the case of Narinder Singh (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as

under :-

"In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down
the following principles by which the High Court would be
guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between
the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the
Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the
proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction
to continue with the criminal proceedings."
In the case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court held as under:-
"57. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 04-11-2026
16:14:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89599
6 MCRC-30071-2025
process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised
where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such
power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot
be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family
and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are
not private in nature and have serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes like Prevention
of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for
any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such
offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
pre-dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for
the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising
from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or
such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony
relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong
is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High
Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because
of the compromise between the offender and victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation
of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by
not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete
settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words,
the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and whether
to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal
case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s)
is in affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."


13. In the light of the aforesaid position of law, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the aim and object of law is not only to punish the culprit,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 04-11-2026
16:14:43

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:89599
7 MCRC-30071-2025
but, the objective of the law is also to maintain peace, tranquility and harmony in

society. If there is a compromise between husband and wife and they are ready to
compromise in terms of applications for seeking compromise under Section 320(2)
of Cr.P.C.. The main objective of which is to settle down in life and live
peacefully. There is a need to encourage matrimonial relations so that the parties
may think over their defaults and settle their disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a Court of law where it takes years and years
to conclude and in that process the parties loose their precious years in attending
their cases in different Courts.
14. Therefore, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra), Gian Singh (supra) and consistent view
of this Court in similar matters, this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under
Section 528 of BNSS, allow the present application and quash the FIR and
consequential criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.185/2023 registered at
Police Station Garha, District Jabalpur against the petitioners for the offence
punishable under Sections 323, 354-A, 377, 498-A of IPC and under Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Actfor commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A
of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the basis of
compromise so entered into between the parties
15. Petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
Sateesh

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 04-11-2026
16:14:43