Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tushar Goyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20974
1 MCRC-4438-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 30th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4438 of 2025
TUSHAR GOYAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of FIR registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.234/2024 at Police Station Rajendragram, District Anuppur, for the offence punishable under Sections 87, 64(2)(j), 115(2), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66E, 67 and 67a of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
2. The counsel have appeared along with their respective parties.
3. Petitioner-Tushar Goyal and the prosecutrix both are aged about 22 years. Their statement has also been recorded before the Registry in which the prosecutrix has categorically stated that she entered into marriage with the petitioner on 18.11.2024 and now she is residing in her in-laws house with her husband (petitioner) and as such, she does not want to prosecute the matter. Therefore, the FIR registered against the petitioner be quashed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:27:23 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20974 2 MCRC-4438-2025
4. Considering the statement made by the parties that they have already entered into marriage and they want to live with each other, 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. 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 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.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:27:23 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20974 3 MCRC-4438-2025
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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:27:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20974 4 MCRC-4438-2025 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.
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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:27:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20974
5 MCRC-4438-2025 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 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, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:27:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20974 6 MCRC-4438-2025 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.
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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:27:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20974 7 MCRC-4438-2025 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."
8. 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 moral turpitude or grave offences like rape, murder etc.
9. 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."
10. 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-Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:27:23 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20974 8 MCRC-4438-2025 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;"
11. 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 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.
12. Counsel for the petitioner also refers the judgment passed by coordinate Bench at Gwalior in MCRC No. 27159/2018 dated 13.08.2018 in the case of Nishit Kumar Bala vs. The State of MP whereby the permission was granted to compound the offences under the I.T. Act. He also placed the judgment passed by Delhi High Court in W.P. (CRL) No. 223/2016 (Tarun Rana vs. State) and also order dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:27:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20974 9 MCRC-4438-2025 01.05.2018 passed in CRM-M No.6056/2018 (Shkhbir Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Anr.) . In para 12 of the judgment in the case of Tarun Rana (supra) it has been held that the offence under Section 66(1)/67 of the Information Technology Act is not compoundable being of serious nature, however, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.
Indubitably, the petitioner and prosecutrix are major and they have entered into marriage and they have also admitted that when the complainant was below 18 years of age, they were in love-affair and out of premonition they had doubt about green-signaling of their relationship by their parents, so they eloped. Even after registration of the offence, their relationship continued and finally they stepped into the wedlock in the month of February, 2024. They got married and ever since are living as husband and wife leading a married life with serenity.
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. Quite apart, in the statement recorded before the trial Court, the prosecutrix did not support the case of the prosecution and utterly stated that whatever had happened it was consensual.
In view of the above discourse and to meet the ends of justice, I allow the petition. Accordingly, the FIR registered Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:27:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20974 10 MCRC-4438-2025 against the petitioner vide Crime No.350/2021 at Police Station Chhapara, District Seoni for the punishable under Section 363, 366, 376, 376(3), 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(1)(w-i), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and Section 3, 4, 5L, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 is hereby quashed.
Needless to emphasise that all subsequent proceedings arose from the FIR, would automatically cease to proceed. Petition is allowed and disposed of. "
5. Considering the aforesaid and taking into the account the fact that the prosecutrix is major 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.
6. In view of the above discourse and to meet the ends of justice, I allow the petition. Accordingly, the FIR registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.234/2024 at Police Station Rajendragram, District Anuppur, for the offence punishable under Sections 87, 64(2)(j), 115(2), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66E, 67 and 67a of the Information Technology Act, is hereby quashed.
7. Needless to emphasise that all subsequent proceedings arose from the FIR, would automatically cease to proceed.
8. Petition is allowed and disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:27:23 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20974
11 MCRC-4438-2025 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 5/7/2025 12:27:23 PM