Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramu Kushwah @ Ramroop Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20859




                                                            1                          MCRC-34186-2025
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                              ON THE 8 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34186 of 2025
                              RAMU KUSHWAH @ RAMROOP KUSHWAH AND OTHERS
                                                  Versus
                                 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                                 Shri Ravi Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioners.
                                 Shri Harish Sharma - DGA for the respondents/State.
                                 Ms. Kajal Tendulakar - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

                                                                ORDER

By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has been preferred by petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS (482 of Cr.P.C.) seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.603 of 2023 registered at Police Station Purani Chhawani District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(1), 376(d), 377, 323, 294, 506 of IPC, Section 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2(v), 3(2(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom on the basis of compromise.

2. Alongwith the petition, both the parties have filed I.A. Nos.16389/2025 and 16390/2025 respectively stating therein that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they have entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20859

2 MCRC-34186-2025

3. In compliance of order dated 05.08.2025 passed by this Court, both the parties (petitioners and prosecutrix) appeared before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 13.08.2025 for verification of compromise.

4. Prosecutrix/respondent No.2 herself appeared before Principal Registrar of this Court and submitted that she wants to settle the matter because she is legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1 - Ramu Kushwah and on the basis of the factum of marriage of prosecutrix with petitioner No.1 the XIth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act) Gwalior in case No.15/2024 vide order dated 26.07.2025 had acquitted the petitioners No.1 and 2.

5. So far as petitioners No.3 and 4 are concerned, the factum of

compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, who has recorded the statements of complainant/respondents as well as petitioners/accused persons and has submitted the report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.

6. 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20859

3 MCRC-34186-2025 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."

7. 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 Apex Court permitted the compounding in a non- compoundable case and quashed the criminal proceedings.

8. 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.

9. In the case of Yogendra Yadav and Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand

and Anr. AIR 2015 SC (Criminal) 166, the Apex Court held as under:-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20859

4 MCRC-34186-2025 "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."

10. In Yogendra Yadav's case (supra) , charges were under Sections 307 and 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 moral turpitude or grave offences like rape, murder etc.

11. In the case of Ramgopla and Anr. vs. State of MP (Criminal Appeal No.1489/2012, decided on September 29, 2021), the Apex Court held in para12 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.''

12. In the case of J aswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr., Criminal Appeal No.1233 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7072 of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20859

5 MCRC-34186-2025 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 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.

13. In the cases of 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, a nd Narinder Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, Supreme Court has 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 utilised in other material cases.

14. In view of the above facts and circumstances and taking into account the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in the opinion of this court, continuance of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of the process of law and wasteful exercise by the courts below.

15. Considering the fact that respondents/complainant and petitioners/accused persons have amicably resolved the issue, this Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20859

6 MCRC-34186-2025 allows this MCRC with the following directions:-

1. FIR bearing Crime No.603 of 2023 registered at Police Station Purani Chhawani District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(1), 376(d), 377, 323, 294, 506 of IPC, Section 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2(v), 3(2(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act against the petitioners is hereby quashed.