Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj Jarele vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14974
1 MCRC-30476-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30476 of 2025
MOHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashley Johnmathew - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Yaduvendra Dwivedi - Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Anand Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of CrPC, 1973 (Section 528 of BNSS,
2023) has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashment the judgment
dated 30.12.2024 passed in RCT No.6515/2016 (State of MP Vs. Manoj
Jarele & Others) by Judicial Magistrate First Class, District-Jabalpur
whereby petitioners were convicted for commission of offence under
Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC. Assailing the aforesaid judgment, petitioners
preferred Criminal Appeal No.32/2025 befoe the Court of Sessions which is
pending for adjudication.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/24/2026
6:45:41 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14974
2 MCRC-30476-2025
2 . Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that according to
the prosecution, marriage between Petitioner No. 1-Mohan Jarele and
Respondent No. 2-Ekta Jarele was solemnized on 07.03.2024 in accordance
with Hindu rites and rituals at Sindhi Dharmashala, Ghantaghat, District
Jabalpur. It is further submitted that on the basis of complaint made by
Respondent No.2, FIR bearing Crime No.357/2016 was registered at Police
Station Ghamapur, District Jabalpur against the petitioners for offences
under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet
was filed. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned JMFC, Jabalpur, vide
judgment dated 30.12.2024 passed in RCT No. 6515/2016 convicted the
petitioners for the commission of offences under Sections 498-A and 323 of
IPC. The said judgment of conviction was challenged before the Court of
Sessions in Criminal Appeal No.32/2025, which is presently pending
adjudication before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present
case, parties have arrived at amicable settlement by way of compromise and
have agreed to resolve their dispute and withdraw all proceedings pending
against each other, which has been duly verified. Offences do not effect
society at large and offences are primarily economic in nature. It is,
therefore, prayed that judgment of conviction dated 30.12.2024 passed in
RCT No.6515/2016 (State of MP Vs. Manoj Jarele & Others ) by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, District-Jabalpur for commission of offence under
Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC as well as all the subsequent proceedings
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/24/2026
6:45:41 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14974
3 MCRC-30476-2025
arising therefrom be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the
judgement of Gain Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder
Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Ramgopal and another vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 531 as well as on the judgment
dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No.1489/2012 (Ramgopal & Anr. vs. State of M.P. ) and Criminal Appeal
No.1488/2012 (Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka ) and also on the
order dated 19.11.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.41474/2025 ( Arun Asati and
Ors. vs. State of M.P.) by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the petition. However,
learned counsel for Respondent No.2/complainant supports the compromise
and submits that in view of the compromise entered into between the parties,
the dispute has been amicably settled between them.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
7 . Vide order dated 14.08.2025, this Court had directed the Registrar
(J-II) of this Court for recording the statement of the parties for compromise
and for verification of compromise arrived at between the parties. In
compliance whereof, Registrar (J-II) has submitted report dated 22.08.2025
accompanied by compromise entered between the parties. Along with the
report, statements of the parties with regard to compromise are also attached
stating therein that parties have arrived at a compromise on their free will &
volition and without any threat, inducement or coercion to settle their dispute
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/24/2026
6:45:41 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14974
4 MCRC-30476-2025
and the compromise is voluntarily. Petitioners and Complainant have been
duly identified by the counsel.
8. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab , (2012) 10 SCC 303 , Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as under in the relevant paragraphs, which are
reproduced below:
“61. …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 FIR
may be exercised where the offender and the victim
have settled their dispute would depend on the facts
and circumstances 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 a serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the
offender in relation to the offences under special
statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences
committed by public servants while working in that capacity,
etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminalSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/24/2026
6:45:41 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:149745 MCRC-30476-2025
proceedings involving such offences. But the 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. In
this category of cases, the High Court may quash the
criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and the victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the 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 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 the
wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice,
it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if
the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding.”
9 . In Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab , (2014) 6 SCC 466 , Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as under in the relevant paragraphs, which are
reproduced below:
” 24. The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputes
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/24/2026
6:45:41 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:149746 MCRC-30476-2025
between themselves and buried the hatchet. Not only this, they
say that since they are neighbours, they want to live like good
neighbours and that was the reason for restoring friendly ties.
In such a scenario, should the court give its imprimatur to such
a settlement. The answer depends on various incidental
aspects which need serious discourse. The Legislators has
categorically recognized that those offences which are covered
by the provisions of section 320 of the Code are concededly
those not only do not fall within the category of heinous crime
but also which are personal between the parties. Therefore,
this provision recognizes whereas there is a compromise
between the parties the Court is to act at the said compromise
and quash the proceedings. However, even in respect of such
offences not covered within the four corners of Section 320 of
the Code, High Court is given power under Section 482 of the
Code to accept the compromise between the parties and quash
the proceedings. The guiding factor is as to whether the ends
of justice would justify such exercise of power, both the
ultimate consequences may be acquittal or dismissal of
indictment. This is so recognized in various judgments taken
note of above.”
* * *
“28. We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have
accepted the compromise between the parties when the matter
in appeal was pending before the High Court against the
conviction recorded by the trial court. Obviously, such cases
are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by
the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307
IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of
the trial court. There would not be any question of accepting
compromise and acquitting the accused persons simply
because the private parties have buried the hatchet.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/24/2026
6:45:41 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14974
7 MCRC-30476-2025
29. 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:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to
compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No
doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has
inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those
cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have
settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is
to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that
basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed,
the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of
justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an
opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions
which involve 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. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed
under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or
the offences committed by Public Servants while working in
that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and pre-dominantly civil character,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/24/2026
6:45:41 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14974
8 MCRC-30476-2025
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or
arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire
disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to
examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the
accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal
cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be
generally treated as crime against the society and not against
the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest
its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It
would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether
incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or
the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if
proved, would lead to proving the charge under Section 307
IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go
by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of
weapons used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered
by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis
of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to
whether there is a strong possibility of conviction or the
chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In the former case
it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal
proceedings whereas in the later case it would be permissible
for the High Court to accept the plea compounding the offence
based on complete settlement between the parties. At this
stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/24/2026
6:45:41 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14974
9 MCRC-30476-2025
settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony
between them which may improve their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under
Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a
crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at
immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the
matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be
liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at
this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge sheet
has not been filed. Likewise, those cases where the charge is
framed but the evidence is yet to start or the evidence is still at
infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in
exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie
assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above. On
the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost
complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is
at the stage of argument, normally the High Court should
refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the
Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a position to
decide the case finally on merits and to come a conclusion as
to whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or
not. Similarly, in those cases where the conviction is already
recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the appellate
stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the
parties would not be a ground to accept the same resulting in
acquittal of the offender who has already been convicted by
the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307 IPC
and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and,
therefore, there is no question of sparing a convict found guilty
of such a crime.”
10. In Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2022) 14
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/24/2026
6:45:41 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14974
10 MCRC-30476-2025
SCC 531, the Court has observed as under; the relevant paragraphs are
reproduced below:
“13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-
heinous offences or where the offences are pre-dominantly of
a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that
trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed
against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole
form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws
evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without
saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-
conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion
with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding
the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been
arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of
the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and
after the incident. The touchstone for exercising the
extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C would be to
secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard-and-fast line
constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial
justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under
Section 482 CrPC may lead to rigid or specious justice, which
in the given fact and circumstances of a case, may rather lead
to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous
offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such
benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this
Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Laxmi
Narayan.”
* * *
“19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to Section 320
CrPC where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise
between the parties in respect of offences “compoundable”
within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/24/2026
6:45:41 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14974
11 MCRC-30476-2025
enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 CrPC or vested
in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be
invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 320 CrPC.
Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude
ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing
criminal proceedings, bearing in mind:
19.1. Nature and effect of the offence on the conscience of the
society;
19.2. Seriousness of the injury, if any;
19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and
the victim’ and
19.4 Conduct of the accused person, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
consideration.”
1 1 . Present case pertains to offence under Sections 498-A, 323 of
IPC. Evidently, parties have entered into a compromise, which has been duly
verified by Registrar (J-II) of this Court. The dispute arises out of a personal
and matrimonial discord between the husband & wife and is purely personal
in nature, not affecting society at large. Continuation of the criminal
proceedings, despite the settlement between the parties, would serve no
useful purpose.
12. Hence, in view of compromise between the parties and in view of
law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab
(supra) and Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra) and Ramgopal and
another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra), petition filed by the petitioners
is allowed and judgment of conviction dated 30.12.2024 passed in RCT
No.6515/2016 (State of MP Vs. Manoj Jarele & Others ) by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, District-Jabalpur for commission of offence under
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/24/2026
6:45:41 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14974
12 MCRC-30476-2025
Sections 498-A and 323 of IPC as well as all the subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom including proceedings of Criminal Appeal No.32/2025
pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur are hereby
set-aside insofar as it relates to the petitioners.
13 The petitioners are acquitted from the aforesaid charges. In view
of above, it is needless to observe that the appeal as well as any proceedings
pending before the Courts below will not survive and requires to be closed.
14 With the aforesaid, petition under Section 482 of CrPC, 1973
(Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Certified copy as per rules.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 2/24/2026
6:45:41 PM
