Gopal Lodhi vs State Of M.P.

2026 INSC 1164
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7332 of 2026
Gopal Lodhi
….Petitioner
VERSUS
State of M.P. & Anr.
…. Respondents
O R D E R
We were only concerned with the petitioner’s claim
for anticipatory bail, when we were told that the matter
had been settled and on that basis the High Court has
quashed the complaint. We would, at the outset, read
order dated 03.09.2026, which stated the law on the point
and our apprehensions, which we extract hereunder: -
“1. The above SLP is an application filed for
anticipatory bail in a crime wherein the offences
alleged are under Sections 64(1), 331(2), 351(3) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and
Section 3(l)(w)(i), 3(l)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC &
ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 in Crime
No.441/2025 registered at Police Station Pachore,
District Rajgarh.
2. We issued notice and posted the matter for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.10.28
16:18:25 IST
Reason:
today. Today, Ms. Warisha Farasat, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that
the matter has been compromised and an
application under Section 528 of the
Page 1 of 7

BNS has been disposed of accepting the
compromise and exercising inherent powers of the
High Court.
3. Considering the seriousness of the offence,
we were slightly perturbed. The following decisions
were referred to by the High Court in the impugned
order, namely, Jagdish Chanana & Ors. Vs. State of
Haryana and Anr. [(2008) 15 SCC 704], Madan
Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC
582], Shiji Vs. Radhika and Anr. [(2011) 10 SCC
705], Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
[(2014) 6 SCC 466], Anita Maria Dias and Anr. Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Anr. [(2018) 3 SCC 290]
and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC
303].
4. Madan Mohan Abbot (supra) was a case in
which the allegations were under Sections
379/406/409/418/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
wherein the High Court found that the offence
under Section 406 is not compoundable since the
amount involved was more than Rs.250/-. This
Court found that in purely personal matters such a
strait jacket approach need not be taken, especially
under Section 482, Cr. PC. Jagdish Channa (supra)
was also a case in which the offence was purely
personal.
5. In Shiji (supra), the complainant was a lady
who alleged theft of a purse and assault, while she
was waiting on the roadside while her husband and
brother-in-law were inspecting a property. The
matter was settled amicably since the allegation
Page 2 of 7

actually arose from a scuffle, the accused had with
the petitioner’s husband and her brother-in-law,
regarding a dispute with respect to a pathway. This
Court found that the origin is in a civil dispute and
the trial would be an exercise in futility since there
would be no witness to establish the crime, the
matter having been settled.
6. In Narinder Singh (supra), the offences
alleged are under Section 307/324/323/34 IPC. The
accused had attacked the complainant which led to
the registration of the crime. Both the accused and
the complainant belonged to the same village, and
the elders of the village intervened to bring in an
amicable settlement. Both parties agreed to bury
the hatchet, in which circumstances, this Court
found continuation of the trial to be unnecessary.
7. In Anita Maria Dias (supra) the complaint
arose from purely commercial transactions. In
Narinder Singh and Anita Maria Dias this Court
while laying down certain guidelines distinguished
the power under Section 482 from that conferred
under Section 320 of the Cr.PC and emphasized the
inherent power being invoked to secure the ends of
justice and to prevent abuse of the process of
Court. However, it was cautioned that such power
is not to be exercised in cases which involve
heinous and serious offences indicating mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc.
which cannot be termed private in nature,
especially due to the serious impact it has on the
society.
Page 3 of 7

8. Gian Singh (supra) was a decision of a three
Judge Bench which reiterated that the scope under
Section 482, Cr. PC to quash criminal proceedings,
involving non-compoundable offences is distinct
and different from the compounding powers under
Section 320. When the parties have settled their
disputes, unless the offences are heinous and
serious like that of mental depravity, murder, rape,
dacoity etc. or under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, the power under Section 482, Cr. PC could be
invoked.
9. One other decision brought to our notice is
Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2024)
16 SCC 502 wherein the crime registered on the
allegation of rape and breach of promise to marry,
was quashed, exercising the jurisdiction under
Section 482, Cr.PC, finding from the allegations
raised itself that the relationship was consensual.
10. The present case is one of rape, and we
should confess that we were inclined to grant
anticipatory bail. However, quashing of a case
under Section 482 relying solely on a compromise,
especially when it is a non-compoundable offence,
would be stepping outside the jurisdiction under
Section 482 that too in violation of the power
conferred under Section 320. We are not only
concerned with the settlements which could be
arrived at on coercion by the accused but also
apprehensive of the multiplicity of such false
complaints being made, with the lure of a future
settlement being arrived it.
Page 4 of 7

11. We are not prima facie satisfied that the
cases referred to by the learned Single Judge of the
High Court would enable invocation of the power
under Section 528 to quash the complaint, on a
compromise where a heinous offence of rape is
alleged; the powers of Section 482 still being
distinct, but such examination of the case having
not been done.
12. In the above circumstances, we call for the
records of the case from the High Court. The
Registry of this Court is directed to direct the
Registry of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at
Indore to transmit the records of Misc. Criminal
Case No.15763 of 2026 and Criminal Appeal
No.2110 of 2026 along with the compromise said to
have been filed before the High Court.
13. Notice shall also be issued to the second
respondent, who shall be given legal assistance, if
necessary.
14. We also expect the State of Madhya
Pradesh to assist us in the above matter.
15. List the matter after three weeks.”
2. On the next posting date, we directed the victim to be
facilitated video conferencing so that we can interact with
her. Today, we interacted with her from the office of the
District Legal Services Authority, Rajgarh, Pachore in the
presence of the Secretary. We interacted directly with the
victim and also through the Secretary DLSA. Our
Page 5 of 7

apprehension was justified, the victim in the same breath
says that she was coerced into settlement, that she is not
ready for a settlement and that she requires money for
settlement. She categorically stated that she made a
complaint and stated the truth therein. However, that will
have to be examined in a trial and we are unable to
express any opinion at this point. We make it clear that the
observations made by us need not regulate the trial, but
we cannot but reiterate our caution insofar as false
accusations being raised on the lure of a financial
settlement and also on the other hand settlements,
motivated by coercion. We have already stated the law on
the point insofar as quashing a case involving serious
offences on mere settlement; which we cannot approve.
We have distinguished the decisions relied on by the
learned Single Judge. We, hence, though not directly
concerned with it, set aside the order passed by the High
Court in Misc. Criminal Case No.15763 of 2026 and direct
the trial to be proceeded with. Insofar as the present
petition is concerned, we set aside the order in Criminal
Appeal No.2110 of 2026 impugned herein and direct the
petitioner herein to be released on anticipatory bail on
Page 6 of 7

such conditions as imposed by the Trial Court. The
petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall
appear before the Trial Court as and when summoned.
3. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand rejected.
.......…….……………………. J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)
....……….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 26, 2026.
Page 7 of 7