Smt Dakhabai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29394
1 MCRC-34829-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
th
ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34829 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020288372026
SMT DAKHABAI AND ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Yash Pal Rathore - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sunit Kapoor - GA for the respondent/State.
Ms. Tapasya Aren - Advocate for the respondent no.2.
ORDER
By invoking inherent powers of this Court, this petition under Section 528
of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is preferred by the petitioners for
quashment of the FIR registered bearing Crime No.20/2026 dated 10.01.2026
registered at Police Station Y.D.Nagar, district Mandsaur under Sections 318(4),
336(3), 338 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the consequent
proceedings arising out of it.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the present petitioners that
present petitioners and respondent/complainant have entered into a compromise
between the parties and compromise has been duly verified by the concerned
Registrar and he has given his report on 07.10.2026. As per the report the
compromise between the parties has been arrived at voluntarily without any threat,
inducement or coercion and the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and
therefore in the light of the compromise between the parties the petition be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 16-10-2026
11:10:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29394
2 MCRC-34829-2026
allowed and FIR dated 10.01.2026 be quashed.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/complainant
has expressed her no objection over the allowing the petition and to quash the FIR
by submitting that the compromise arrived at between the parties willingly.
4. Learned Government Advocate has opposed the application on the
ground that the offences under Sections 336(3), 338 of BNS are non-
compoundable though Section 318(4) is compoundable with the permission of the
Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ramavtar Vs. State of M.P.
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 966, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, [(2012)10
SCC 303], and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , [(2014) 6 SCC
466, Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana & another (AIR 2008 SC
1968), Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2008 SC 1969), Shiji Vs.
Radhika & Another (2011) 10 SCC 705, laid down that even in non-
compoundable cases on the basis of compromise, criminal proceedings can be
quashed so that valuable time of the Court can be saved and utilized in other
material cases.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kapil Gupta Vs. State of NCT of
Delhi & Another passed in Criminal Appeal No.1217 of 2022 decided on
10.8.2022 in which a criminal case under Section 376 IPC against the petitioner
therein was considered for quashment of FIR on the basis of compromise wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the dictum in the case of Narinder
Singh (supra) held in para 13 and 14 that if there is insufficient evidence and by
virtue of compromise there is no chance of conviction and the settlement between
the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may improve their
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 16-10-2026
11:10:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29394
3 MCRC-34829-2026
mutual relationship then at primary stage on such compromise, proceedings may

be quashed. Para 13 and 14 of Kapil Gupta (supra) are material and thus
reproduced for ready reference and convenience:

“13. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the
Court should be slow in quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and
serious offences are involved, the High Court is not foreclosed from
examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such
an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved
would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with. The
Court has also to take into consideration as to whether the settlement
between the parties is going to result into harmony between them
which may improve their mutual relationship.
14. The Court has further held that it is also relevant to consider as to
what is stage of the proceedings. It has been observed that if an
application is made at a belated stage wherein the evidence has been led
and the matter is at the stage of arguments or judgment, the Court
should be slow to exercise the power to quash the proceedings.
However, if such an application is made at an initial stage before
commencement of trial, the said factor will weigh with the court in
exercising its power.”
8. A three Judges’ Bench of Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 has held as
under :-

"(1) The power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section
320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and
predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or
family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute
amongst themselves;
(2) Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions, which
involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences
like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature
and have a serious impact on society;
(3) Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under
the special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants, while working in that capacity are not to
be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and
the offender.”
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal (supra) in para
13, 14, 19 and 20 has held as under :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 16-10-2026
11:10:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29394
4 MCRC-34829-2026

"13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous
offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of a private nature,
can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been
concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out
punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method
of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes
without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-
conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with
rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident,
the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due
regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct
of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for
exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482CrPC would be to
secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard-and-fast line
constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A
restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482CrPC may
lead to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts and
circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other
hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against
perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously
observed by this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Narinder
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, para 29 : (2014) 3 SCC
(Cri) 54] and Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019)
5 SCC 688, para 15 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706] .
14. In other words, grave or serious offences or offences which involve
moral turpitude or have a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric
of the society or involve matters concerning public policy, cannot be
construed betwixt two individuals or groups only, for such offences
have the potential to impact the society at large. Effacing abominable
offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal
to the community but may also accord an undue benefit to
unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a
“settlement” through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other
dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty man escape, if it can be
avoided”.
19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320CrPC
where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the
parties in respect of offences “compoundable” within the statutory
framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under
Section 482CrPC or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section
320CrPC. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude
ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal
proceedings, bearing in mind:
19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the society;
19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any;
19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the
victim; and
19.4 Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence
of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 16-10-2026
11:10:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29394
5 MCRC-34829-2026
20. Having appraised the aforestated parameters and weighing upon the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the two appeals before us, we are
inclined to invoke powers under Article 142 and quash the criminal
proceedings and consequently set aside the conviction in both the
appeals. We say so for the reasons that:
20.1.Firstly, the occurrence(s) involved in these appeals can be
categorised as purely personal or having overtones of criminal
proceedings of private nature.
20.2.Secondly, the nature of injuries incurred, for which the appellants
have been convicted, do not appear to exhibit their mental depravity or
commission of an offence of such a serious nature that quashing of
which would override public interest.
20.3.Thirdly, given the nature of the offence and injuries, it is
immaterial that the trial against the appellants had been concluded or
their appeal(s) against conviction stand dismissed.
20.4.Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without any coercion or
compulsion, willingly and voluntarily have buried their differences and
wish to accord a quietus to their dispute(s).
20.5.Fifthly, the occurrence(s) in both the cases took place way back in
the years 2000 and 1995, respectively. There is nothing on record to
evince that either before or after the purported compromise, any
untoward incident transpired between the parties.
20.6.Sixthly, since the appellants and the complainant(s) are residents
of the same village(s) and/or work in close vicinity, the quashing of
criminal proceedings will advance peace, harmony, and fellowship
amongst the parties who have decided to forget and forgive any ill will
and have no vengeance against each other.
20.7.Seventhly, the cause of administration of criminal justice system
would remain un-effected on acceptance of the amicable settlement
between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the appellants; more so
looking at their present age."

10. In the aforesaid decision Ramgopal (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme
Court quashed the proceedings under Section 326 of IPC on the basis of
compromise finding that the occurrence can be categorized as purely personal or
having overtones of criminal proceedings of private nature and nature of injuries
do not appear to exhibit mental depravity of accused or commission of an offence
of such a serious nature that quashing of which would override public interest.
11. Having regard to the aforesaid dictum as well as attending facts and
circumstances of the case, it is found that the facts of the present case is more or
less similar to that of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ramgopal (supra). In the present case also, crime in question is between the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 16-10-2026
11:10:53

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29394
6 MCRC-34829-2026
parties, who now have settled their disputes and resumed their good relations. In

these circumstances, to save valuable time of the Court and in the interest of
justice, it appears to be a fit case to exercise the power under Section 528 of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 because letting the dispute hang on,
there are chances that relationship between the parties may disrupt again. The
settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which
may improve their future relationship.
12. Resultantly, FIR registered against the petitioners bearing Crime
No.20/2026 dated 10.01.2026 registered at Police Station Y.D.Nagar, district
Mandsaur under Section 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and the consequent proceedings arising out of it, are hereby
quashed.
With the aforesaid, the M.Cr.C. stands disposed off.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
RJ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA JOSEPH
Signing time: 16-10-2026
11:10:53