Chanchal Singh Alias Bhanu Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2025

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67150




                                                                1                        MCRC-34495-2025
                                IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                      AT JABALPUR
                                                            BEFORE
                                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
                                                  ON THE 15th OF DECEMBER, 2025
                                              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34495 of 2025
                                           CHANCHAL SINGH ALIAS BHANU JATAV
                                                         Versus
                                        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                     Shri Amit Khatri - Advocate for the applicant.
                                     Shri Shikha Baghel - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.
                                     Shri Ashutosh Dubey - Advocate for respondent No.2.

                                                                    ORDER

This petition has been filed for invoking inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashment of FIR bearing crime No.597/2023 registered at Police Station Adhartal, Jabalpur on 17.05.2023 and entire charge sheet for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376 and 376(2)(n) of IPC and under Section 3, 4, 51 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Protection of Child Marriage Act, 2006. After

investigation, the police has filed charge sheet before Special POCSO Court, Jabalpur and case is registered as Special Case No.183/2023 which is pending for trial.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is aged about 21 years and victim is aged 18 years. The both were in consensual love relationship. The prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67150

2 MCRC-34495-2025 the petitioner and did not make any allegations of coercion or force in her statement before the Magistrate. The relationship was not exploitative but based on mutual affection and understanding. The prosecutrix is a major and with consent and without external pressure they solemnized marriage on 22.05.2024 at Jabalpur.

3. It is further submitted that in this regard both the parties have filed compromise before the trial Court however, the same has been rejected on the ground that the offences are non-compoundable. Therefore, this petition is filed for quashment of FIR as well as entire criminal proceedings pending before the trial Court.

4. Considering the aforesaid and the fact that the statement of the parties has already recorded before the Registry in which they have admitted that the

prosecutrix and the applicant have entered into marriage, I find that it would be in the interest of justice to set free the applicant from prosecution so that the married couple can lead a happy married life. This Court in a case of Saurabh Sahu Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others (M.Cr.C. No.21142 of 2024) has observed as under:-

"On a mature consideration, I find that it would be in the interest of justice to set free the petitioner from prosecution so that the married couple can lead a happy married life. My view also takes strength from the view of the coordinate Bench at Gwalior in M.Cr.C.No.16121/2024 (Nasir Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.) decided on 26.04.2024 at Bench Gwalior, wherein it has been observed as under:-

10. Today, prosecutrix and petitioner/accused appeared before this Court. They expressed their desire to settle the matter because they have no problem if case is compounded in peculiar facts and circumstances. Prosecutrix has two children out of the wedlock with accused.

11. Be that as it may.

12. Fact remains that petitioner and respondent No.2 are married couple and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67150

3 MCRC-34495-2025 both are living in same household where prosecutrix is living with her two children. It is regular and easy to be retributive but at the same time a Judge has to sublimely feel the pulse of the case. One cannot forget that "Every "F I L E"

with same alphabets, contains a "L I F E". (See : In Re State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pankaj Mishra, 2021 SCC OnLine MP 5480 and Geeta Paliwal and others Vs. Sitaram and others reported as 2023 SCC 5 Online MP 811.)

13. Here "FILE" before this Court carries not only a "LIFE" but many LIVES.

14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I.A.No.8492/2024 and I.A. No.8493/2024 are hereby allowed and parties are permitted to compound the offence.

15. Therefore, this Court under the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case intends to tread on the path of reformative or atleast other than retributive one because:-

(i) a girl of tender age around (16-17 years) has fallen in love with a boy of 20 years of same vicinity and driven by hormones they shared emotional and physical proximity and moved out of social/legal limits.

(ii) Girl was of consistent view that she shared emotional/physical proximity on her own volition. Her statements under Section 161/164 Cr.P.C. indicates so.

(iii). Petitioner and prosecutrix entered into wedlock and are blessed with two female child in which one is aged about one and half year and another is of only 4 months. Prosecutrix is living peacefully with her husband. In case of any punishment, petitioner may have to go to jail and that would disrupt the family forever.

(iv) Petitioner does not have any previous criminal background so as to infer any mischief at this juncture. Therefore, keeping this spirit, this Court intends to inject "L I F E" into this "F I L E" in the interest of justice.

16. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. FIR registered at Crime No.849/2019 at Police Station Bahodapura, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 376(3), 376 (2i), 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 5(l) read with 6 of POCSO Act against the petitioner is hereby quashed. All the consequential proceedings flowing out of the said FIR including S.T. No.276/2021 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO) Act, Gwalior against the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67150

4 MCRC-34495-2025 petitioner also stands quashed. Petitioner is set free. But an expectation can certainly be raised by this Court that petitioner/accused and prosecutrix shall live peacefully and would try to attain nuptial bliss so that family and social harmony can be maintained."

5. Over and above, in M.Cr.C No.3853/2024 (Shivam @ Siddarth v. The State of Madhya pradesh & Anr.) vide order dated 13.02.2024, the coordinate bench at Indore has observed as under:-

"4. In view of the above, it would be apposite to survey the law in respect of compounding in non-compoundable case. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the provisions of section 320 and 482 of the Cr.P.C held that the compounding can he permitted in a non-compoundable offence. Relevant part of the order of the order reads as under:

"Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji do illustrate the principle that the High Court may quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code and Section 320 does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482. Can it be said that by quashing criminal proceedings in B.S.Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Shiji this Court has compounded the non-compoundable offences indirectly? We do not think so. There does exist the distinction between compounding of an offence under Section 320 and quashing of a criminal case by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482. The two powers are distinct and different although the ultimate consequence may be the same viz. acquittal of the accused or dismissal of indictment.

5. In a subsequent order, in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No.686/2014 dated 27.03.2014 after relying on the judgment passed in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67150

5 MCRC-34495-2025 Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable case and quashed the criminal proceedings.

6. In the case of Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1132-1155 of 2022), the Apex Court held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is wide and can even be exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non-compoundable offences, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court. Where the victim and offender have compromised disputes essentially civil and personal in nature, the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings.

6. In the case of Yogendra Yadav & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. AIR 2015 SC (Criminal) 166, the Apex Court held as under :-

"Needless to say that offences which are non-compoundable cannot be compound by the Court. Courts draw the power of compounding offences from Section 320 of the Code. The said provision has to be strictly followed (Gian Singh V. State of Punjab). However, in a given case, the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and the victim has no objection, even though the offences are non- compoundable. In which cases the High Court can exercise its discretion to quash the proceedings will depend on facts and circumstances of each case. Offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder etc. cannot be effaced by quashing the proceedings because that will have harmful effect on the society. Such offences cannot be said to be restricted to two individuals or two groups. If such offences are quashed, it may sent wrong signal to the society. However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace."

7. In Yogendra Yadav's case (supra), charges were under Sections 307 & 326 IPC. The apex Court was of the view that the High Court could have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. because parties have amicably settled the dispute and the case did not pertain to an offence of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67150

6 MCRC-34495-2025 moral turpitude or grave offences like rape, murder etc.

8. In the case of Ramgopla & Anr. vs. State of MP (Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012, decided on September 29, 2021), the Apex Court held in para 12 as under :-

''12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and therefore, adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system."

9 . In the case of State of M.P. vs. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court discussed the earlier judgments of the Apex Court and laid down the principles in para-15. The relevant para-15.1 & 15.2 are reproduced as under:-

''15.1 That 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;

15.2. 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;'

10. In the case of Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.1233 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7072 of 2021

decided on 20.10.2021), the Apex Court held in para 61 that criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:67150

7 MCRC-34495-2025 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, the proceedings can be quashed in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in non-compoundable cases on the basis of compounding.

11. Considering the aforesaid and taking into the account the fact that the prosecutrix is major now and appears mentally sound to comprehend her well-being and simultaneously looking to their future prospects, I find that if the prosecution is allowed to continue and eventually if the petitioner is convicted by the trial Court, it would ruin their life.

12. In view of the above discourse and to meet the ends of justice, I allow the petition. Accordingly, the FIR bearing crime No.597/2023 registered at Police Station Adhartal, Jabalpur on 17.05.2023 and entire charge sheet for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 342, 376 and 376(2)(n) of IPC and under Section 3, 4, 51 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 9 of Protection of Child Marriage Act, 2006 are hereby quashed.