Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Shubham Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29001
1 MCRC-4635-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 3 rd OF JULY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4635 of 2021
DR. SHUBHAM MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nitin Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri C.M.Tiwari - G.A for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition has been filed for invoking inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of FIR
bearing crime no. 199/2019 dated 04.07.2019 and entire charge sheet for
commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC and under
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner.
2. On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the
parties have filed I.A. No.8439/2025 an application for compromise under
Sections 320(2) of Cr.P.C.
3. The facts of the case are that marriage of respondent no.2
Priyamvada Shukla was solemnized with Devansh Shukla as per Hindu rites
and customs on 16.04.2017. Applicant is sister-in-law of the complainant.
Applicant alongwith co-accused persons harassed the deceased on demand of
dowry.
4. The respondent No.2 lodged an FIR bearing crime no.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29001
2 MCRC-4635-2021
199/2019 registered at P.S. Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur against
the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and
under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Seeking quashment of charges,
this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed. During pendency
of this petition, both the parties filed an application for seeking compromise
before this Court.
5. The parties have amicably settled their differences by way of
mutual settlement. Pursuant to the same on 14.05.2025, parties were directed
to appear before the Registrar (J-II) for verifying the genuineness and
correctness of the compromise.
6. On 14.05.2025, parties appeared before the Registrar (J-II) who
recorded the statement of petitioner as well as respondent no.2. Both the
parties have supported the factum of amicable settlement between them.
They entered into compromise without any threat, inducement or pressure
with the applicant. Registrar (J-II) in his report has mentioned that
compromise appears to be genuine and authentic. Parties have been duly
identified by their counsel.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for
the petitioner placing reliance on the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others
vs. Babita Raghuwanshi and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.447/2013
vide judgment dated 15.03.2013 by the Supreme Court, Jagdish Channa and
others vs. State of Haryana and another -AIR 2008 SC 1968, Madan Mohan
Abbot vs. State of Punjab - AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji vs. Radhika and
another - (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29001
3 MCRC-4635-2021
(2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303 have submitted that criminal proceedings arising out of
matrimonial disputes can be quashed by the Court, if the Court is satisfied
that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably.
8. It is not in dispute that on the case in hand, subsequent to filing of
criminal case under Sections 498A of IPC and Section 3, 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, parties concerned have amicably settled their differences
and executed a compromise/settlement and pursuant thereto, filed the said
compromise before this Court with a request to take the same on record and
to drop the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein. It is also not
in dispute that respondent no.2/wife before the Registrar (J-II) has stated
that she has entered into the compromise and did not wish to pursue criminal
proceedings against the petitioners and fully supported the contents of the
compromise application.
9. In the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as under:-
"9. Learned counsel for the parties, by drawing our attention to
the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana
and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, submitted that in an identical
circumstance, this Court held that the High Court in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 can quash criminal proceedings in
matrimonial disputes where the dispute is entirely private and the
parties are willing to settle their disputes amicably. It is not in dispute
that the facts in B.S. Joshi (supra) are identical and the nature of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29001
4 MCRC-4635-2021
offence and the question of law involved are almost similar to the one
in hand. After considering the law laid down in State of Haryana vs.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and explaining the decisions
rendered in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC
551, Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC
238 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate &
Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, this Court held:
"8. ... We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of
securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary,
Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing.
It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.
Considering matrimonial matters, this Court also held:
"12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident.
It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of
matrimonial disputes."
10) As stated earlier, it is not in dispute that after filing of a
complaint in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A
and 406 of IPC, the parties, in the instant case, arrived at a mutual
settlement and the complainant also has sworn an affidavit supporting
the stand of the appellants. That was the position before the trial Court
as well as before the High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code. A perusal of the impugned order of the High Court shows
that because the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties relate
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29001
5 MCRC-4635-2021
to non-compoundable offence, the court proceeded on a wrong premise
that it cannot be compounded and dismissed the petition filed under
Section 482. A perusal of the petition before the High Court shows that
the application filed by the appellants was not for compounding of non-
compoundable offences but for the purpose of quashing the criminal
proceedings.
11) The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of
the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S. Joshi (supra), this Court has
upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash
criminal proceedings where dispute is of a private nature and a
compromise is entered into between the parties who are willing to settle
their differences amicably. We are satisfied that the said decision is
directly applicable to the case on hand and the High Court ought to
have quashed the criminal proceedings by accepting the settlement
arrived at.
12) In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine
settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on
considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if
they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the
parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we
hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the
Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR,
complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings."
10. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29001
6 MCRC-4635-2021
in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR
or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and
Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code.
In the case of Narinder Singh(supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under :-
"In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the
following principles by which the High Court would be guided in
giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the
settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the
settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings."
In the case of Gian Singh (supra) Apex Court held as under:-
"57. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be
summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal
proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for
compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i)
to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of
any Court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or
complaint or F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim
have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29001
7 MCRC-4635-2021
of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly
quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender
have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and
have serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the
victim and offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any
basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But
the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-dominatingly civil
flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of quashing,
particularly the offences 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. In this category of cases, High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement
and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29001
8 MCRC-4635-2021
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice
to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case
is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash
the criminal proceeding."
11. In the light of the aforesaid position of law, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the aim and object of law is not only to punish the
culprit, but, the objective of the law is also to maintain peace, tranquility and
harmony in society. If there is a compromise between husband and wife and
they are ready to compromise in terms of applications for seeking
compromise under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C.. The main objective of which is
to settle down in life and live peacefully. There is a need to encourage
matrimonial relations so that the parties may think over their defaults and
settle their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out
in a Court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that
process the parties loose their precious years in attending their cases in
different Courts.
12. Therefore, relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra), Gian Singh (supra) and
consistent view of this Court in similar matters, this Court in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allow
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:29001
9 MCRC-4635-2021
the present application and quash the FIR No.199/2019 registered at P.S.
Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur and subsequent proceedings, on the
basis of compromise so entered into between the parties
13. Petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
anu
