This petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the applicant/ accused for quashing FIR, bearing crime no.50/2023, offence u/s 376(2)(n), 506, 450 of IPC, 5/6 of POCSO Act, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) of SC/ ST (P.A.) Act, registered at P/S Bilpak, Distt. Ratlam.

2. As per prosecution case, the prosecutrix is minor below 17 years of age. The prosecutrix and applicant were acquainted with each other from before the incident. Both of them started to like each other almost from one year before of the lodging of FIR. Meanwhile parents of the prosecutrix engaged her with other person. Therefore, the petitioner got upset and started to give threat to the prosecutrix to stop talking to her fiance or else he will consume some poisonous substance and he will also kill her fiance. Therefore, the prosecutrix started to talk with the petitioner. But when the petitioner expressed that he will marry with the prosecutrix, she again stopped conversation with the petitioner. Thereafter, he again gave false promise to marry the prosecutrix and he committed rape upon her repeatedly but lastly he denied to marry with her. The matter was reported on 28/01/2023 against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the prosecutrix submitted that an application for compromise vide I.A. no.7492/2024 was filed. The said application was sent for verification before the Principal Registrar of this court. A verification report has been received where matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner and the prosecutrix without any fear or coercion. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Umashankar alias Umesh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. [MCRC No. 43911/2022] and Gopal Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. [MCRC No. 38432/2023].

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the state submits that alleged offences are not compoundable u/S 320 of Cr.P.C. except section 506 of the IPC.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. In the case of Umashankar alias Umesh (Supra), the coordinate bench of this court has observed as under:-

"7. The order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ananda D.V. vs. State & another (supra) reads, as under: "These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 14.11.2019 and 30.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition Criminal Nos. 2382 of 2019 and 287 of 2020 respectively, whereby the High Court rejected the criminal writ petitions for quashing of FIR No. 455 of 2013 dated 17.09.2013 in respect of offence registered at P.S. Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

The gravamen of the allegations in the FIR filed by the private respondent was that the appellant had promised her that he will marry her, which promise was not kept by the appellant. The FIR was registered on 17.09.2013.

It is not in dispute that after the registration of FIR, the parties were able to resolve their differences and eventually got married on 11.10.2014. The appellant as well as private respondent represented by Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel jointly state that they are enjoying happy married life.

1. A joint request is, therefore, made on behalf of the appellant and the private respondent that the FIR registered on 17.09.2013 be quashed as it was the outcome of some misunderstanding between the parties.

Considering the nature of allegations in the FIR and the realization of the fact that due to miscommunication FIR came to be registered at the relevant point of time which issues/misunderstanding have now been fully resolved and the parties are happily married since 11.10.2014, the basis of FIR does not survive. Rather registering such FIR was an ill- advised move on the part of the private respondent, is the stand now taken before us. It is seen that the appellant and private respondent are literate and well-informed persons and have jointly opted for quashing of the stated FIR.

Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in the interest of justice, we accede to the joint request of quashing of FIR in the peculiar facts of the present case.

Hence, these appeals must succeed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. Instead, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant for quashing is allowed, as a result of which, all steps taken on the basis of impugned FIR be treated as effaced from the record in law.

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."

7. In the case of Gopal (Supra), an FIR was registered u/S 354A(1)(i), 354D, 384, 500 of IPC; u/S. 67, 67A, 67B, 66D of the, and S.11/12 and 13/14 of the POCSO Act, wherein both the parties had settled their matters therefore, on the basis of compromise coordinate bench of this court had quashed the FIR as well as subsequent proceedings.

8. In the case of Mohd. Julfukar Vs. State of Uttarakhand And Anr. [ AIR 2024 SC 781] the accused and complainant were in relationship, however, the relationship of the accused and complainant was against the wishes of their parents but both of them decided to reside together and both the parties had amicably settled their matter. In these situations the Apex court found that the continuation of the criminal proceeding would not be in the interest of justice and the proceedings were quashed and set aside.

9. In the case of Sunil Vs. State Of M.P. And Anr. [Order dated 06/03/2024 in MCRC no. 8158/ 2024] the coordinate bench of this court has held as under:-

"7. 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."

10. In the case of Virender Chahal Vs. State And Anr. [2024 SCC Online Del 1630] the Delhi High Court has opined as under:-

"37. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court has held that criminal proceedings arising out of heinous offence such as rape cannot be quashed, merely on the basis of some settlement agreement executed between the accused and the victim, except in cases where there may be extraordinary circumstances to show that continuation of criminal proceedings in a case of serious nature would in fact result in abuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice. As expressed in case of State of M.P. v. Madanlal (supra), under no circumstance can one even think of compromise in a case of rape."

11. In the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur And Ors Vs. State Of Gujarat And Anr. [Cr.A. No. 1723/2017, Judgment Dated 04/10/2017], the Apex court has observed as under:-

"15 The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power;

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

12. In the case of Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab [ (2014) 6 SCC 466] the Apex Court highlighted the following principles:-

"1. The power of the court u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. is an inherent power which can be attracted even if the offence is non compoundable.

2. The power u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

3. This power cannot be exercised in case involving heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offence like murder, rape, dacoity etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.

4. The court is under obligation to look at the nature and gravity of an offence while deciding on an application for quashment of FIR on the ground of compromise."

13. It is apparent from the aforementioned judgment that the ultimate objective of inherent power vested with the High Court is to prevent the abuse of process of court and miscarriage of justice. This power shall be exercised sparingly in the case involving heinous offences especially whereby the victims are minors, who are subjected to sexual offences.

14. In view of aforesaid position of law, the concept of compromise with regard to the offence of rape cannot be accepted in a routine manner but the nature of offence is considerable. No doubt, in the instant case compromise application has been filed, which shows that the prosecutrix does not want to prosecute the FIR against the petitioner but the offence is related to rape of a minor which is serious and heinous in nature and affects the society, accordingly, in absence of any extraordinary circumstance it is not appropriate to quash such kind of offences despite of settlement between the parties.

15. Accordingly, this petition filed u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.