Smt. Rashida vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30377
1 MCRC-50059-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50059 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020407552026
SMT. RASHIDA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Palash Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunit Kapoor appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Saket Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashment of
F.I.R. registered at Crime No.440/2023 against the petitioner by respondent No.2
for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and all consequential
proceedings arising out of it, on the basis of compromise arrived at between
the parties.
02. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant that the petitioner and
complainant have entered into a compromise. The compromise has duly been
verified by the concerned Registrar It is further
vide report dated 23.10.2026.
submitted that the compromise has been verified and it is found that compromise
has been arrived at between the parties with free will, volition and without any
threat, inducement and coercion. They have settled their dispute by way of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/29/2026
5:09:38 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30377
2 MCRC-50059-2026
compromise.

03. It is further submitted that offence under Section 420 of IPC is
compoundable, but offence under Sections 467, 468, 471 of IPC are not
compoundable. However, there is a compromise between the parties,
therefore, F.I.R. under Section 467, 468, 471 of IPC is to be quashed.
04. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
No.2/complainant has expressed his no objection over allowing the petition
and to quash the FIR by submitting that the compromise arrived at between
the parties willingly.
05. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently
opposed the prayer.
06. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
available on record as well as verification report submitted by Principal
Registrar/OSD of this Court.
07. 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.
08. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/29/2026
5:09:38 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30377
3 MCRC-50059-2026
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
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.”

09. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/29/2026
5:09:38 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30377
4 MCRC-50059-2026
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.”

10 . Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Daulat Singh Gurjar
and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vide order dated
08.11.2024 and Makhan Singh Gurjar and Others Vs. Madhya Pradesh Shasan
and Others vide order dated 12.12.2024, quashed the F.I.R. in the cases of
comprise between the party wherein no injury was caused to any person.
11. On testing the attending facts and circumstances of this case on the
anvil of the dictum laid down in aforesaid cases and taking into consideration that
parties have settled their disputes by way of compromise and the crime in
question is between the parties, who now have 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
BNSS because letting the dispute hang on, there are chances that relationship
between the parties may disrupt again, moreover there is remote and bleak
possibility of conviction in this case keeping in view the compromise took place
between the parties. The settlement between the parties is going to result in
harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.
12. Resultantly, this Court allows this petition by quashing the F.I.R.
registered at Crime No.440/2023 against the petitioner by respondent No.2 for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/29/2026
5:09:38 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30377
5 MCRC-50059-2026
offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and all consequential

proceedings arising out of it, on the basis of compromise, so far as it relates to the
petitioners.
13. This petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Shilpa

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/29/2026
5:09:38 PM