Rishabh Jain vs Smt Radhika Jain

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88321
1 MCRC-45130-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45130 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010679472026
RISHABH JAIN
Versus
SMT RADHIKA JAIN
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Harishankar Suryawanshi - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973) has been preferred by the applicant seeking quashment of
the order dated 27.05.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Jabalpur, whereby cognizance has been taken against the applicant for
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with the private
complaint registered as RCT No. 5390/2026.
2. During pendency of this petition, the parties have amicably settled
their dispute and have jointly filed an application for compromise bearing
I.A. No. 23902/2026, praying for quashment of the criminal proceedings on
the basis of the settlement arrived at between them.
3. It is stated in the compromise application that the applicant and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 03-11-2026
15:11:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88321
2 MCRC-45130-2026
complainant/respondent are close relatives and the dispute between them

primarily relates to a sale deed dated 24.01.2019. Owing to certain
differences arising out of the said transaction, the complainant had initiated
the criminal proceedings against the applicant. However, during pendency of
the present petition, the parties have resolved their disputes amicably outside
the Court and have decided to put an end to all their differences. It is further
stated that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the parties
appeared before the Registrar (J-II) and their statements were duly recorded.
The complainant/respondent has categorically stated that the compromise has
been entered into voluntarily, without any force, pressure, coercion or undue
influence, and that he does not wish to prosecute the complaint any further or
pursue any criminal action against the applicant in relation to the sale deed
dated 24.01.2019.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that in view of
the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose
would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue. It is
contended that the dispute essentially arises out of a transaction concerning
immovable property between close relatives and is predominantly civil in
nature. The complainant has voluntarily settled the dispute and does not
intend to pursue the criminal proceedings. Therefore, continuation of the
prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
5 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant has
supported the compromise application and submitted that the complainant
has no objection if the criminal proceedings pending before the learned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 03-11-2026
15:11:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88321
3 MCRC-45130-2026
JMFC, Jabalpur, are quashed in view of the settlement arrived at between the

parties.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,
including the compromise application, affidavits filed by the parties and the
statements recorded before the Registrar (J-II).
7. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is
whether the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences can
be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the
BNSS, 2023, on the basis of an amicable settlement arrived at between the
parties.
8. The law relating to exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing
criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise is no longer res integra.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that the High Court, in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is competent to quash
criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offences where the
dispute is predominantly private or civil in nature and the parties have
amicably settled their differences. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed
that the power of the High Court is distinct from the power of compounding
offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. and can be exercised to secure the
ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
10. Further, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan
and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the
principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 03-11-2026
15:11:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88321
4 MCRC-45130-2026
criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that while exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court must
consider the nature and gravity of the offence, its impact on society, the
antecedents of the accused and the possibility of the dispute being
predominantly private in nature. It has also been held that offences having
serious social ramifications, particularly heinous offences and offences
involving mental depravity, ordinarily should not be quashed merely because
the parties have entered into a compromise.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramgopal and Another v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 303, has further explained the scope of
inherent powers of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings on the
basis of compromise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the
earlier decisions, has held that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous
offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature can be
quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that
such offences are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. It is
further held that while exercising such powers, the Court must take into
consideration the nature and effect of the offence on society, the seriousness
of the injury, if any, the voluntary nature of the compromise and the conduct
of the accused.
12. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 13 SCC
635, wherein it has been held that the High Court can exercise its inherent
powers to quash criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise, having
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 03-11-2026
15:11:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88321
5 MCRC-45130-2026
due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the

victim/complainant has voluntarily entered into a settlement.
13. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the
dispute between the parties primarily arises out of a transaction relating to a
sale deed dated 24.01.2019. The parties are close relatives and have now
resolved their disputes amicably. The complainant has appeared before the
Registrar (J-II) and his statement has been recorded. He has categorically
expressed his willingness to settle the matter and has stated that he does not
wish to pursue the criminal complaint against the applicant. This Court is
conscious of the fact that the offences alleged against the applicant include
offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, which
relate to forgery and use of forged documents and are undoubtedly serious in
nature. Such offences cannot ordinarily be quashed merely on the basis of a
private settlement. However, the nature of the allegations, the background of
the dispute, the relationship between the parties and the circumstances in
which the criminal proceedings came to be instituted have to be considered
cumulatively.
14. In the present case, having regard to the material available on
record, the dispute appears to have arisen out of differences between the
parties concerning a particular sale deed and is essentially confined to the
parties involved in the transaction. There is no material before this Court
indicating any wider public impact or involvement of public funds or public
property.
15. The Court is, therefore, of the considered view that, on the peculiar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 03-11-2026
15:11:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88321
6 MCRC-45130-2026
facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of the criminal

proceedings would not serve any fruitful purpose, particularly when the
complainant himself has voluntarily settled the dispute and does not wish to
pursue the prosecution.
16. It is also relevant to note that the parties have not merely filed a
joint application for compromise but have personally appeared before the
Registrar (J-II) and their statements have been recorded in compliance with
the directions of this Court. The compromise appears to be voluntary and
genuine, and there is nothing on record to indicate that the same has been
brought about by coercion, undue influence or pressure.
17. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gian Singh (supra), Laxmi Narayan (supra), Ramgopal (supra) and
Ramawatar (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the present
case falls within the category of cases where exercise of inherent jurisdiction
would advance the cause of justice and prevent unnecessary continuation of
criminal litigation.
18. Accordingly, the compromise application (I.A. No. 23902/2026) is
allowed.
19. Consequently, the present petition under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed. The order dated
27.05.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur,
taking cognizance against the applicant for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, as well as the consequential criminal proceedings in RCT No.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 03-11-2026
15:11:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:88321
7 MCRC-45130-2026
5390/2026, pending before the learned JMFC, Jabalpur, are hereby

quashed. As a consequence, all further proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid complaint, qua the applicant, shall stand terminated.
20. It is made clear that this order is confined to the criminal
proceedings arising out of the aforesaid complaint and shall not be construed
as an adjudication upon the independent civil rights or title of the parties in
respect of the property in question.
21. Petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Prachi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 03-11-2026
15:11:41