Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish Dhote vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56528
1 MCRC-16641-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
ON THE 27th OF JULY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16641 of 2026
MANISH DHOTE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Yogesh Dhande - Government Advocate for the respondent
No.1/State.
Shri Shivam Gautam - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of FIR and consequential
criminal proceedings in relation to Crime No.06/2025 registered at P.S.
Mahila Thana, District Betul for commission of offence punishable under
Sections 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act against the petitioners.
2. On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the
parties have filed I.A. No.9501/2026, which is an application for
compromise under Sections 320 of Cr.P.C.
3. The facts of the case are that marriage of respondent
No.2/complainant Rajshree Potphode was solemnized with petitioner No.1
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:38:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56528
2 MCRC-16641-2026
Manish Dhote as per Hindu rites and customs on 04.05.2018. Petitioner No.2
is mother-in-law, petitioner No.3 is the Sister-in-law (Jethani) and petitioner
No.4 is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the respondent No.2/complainant. It is
alleged that the petitioners have tortured and harassed the deceased regarding
demand of dowry.
4. The respondent No.2 lodged an FIR bearing Crime No.06/2025
registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Betul against the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Sections 498A r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 3/4
of Dowry Prohibition Act. This petition has been filed for quashment of
F.I.R. and consequential criminal proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
During pendency of this petition, both the parties filed an application I.A.
No.9501/2026 under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. seeking compromise before this
Court.
5. The parties have amicably settled their differences by way of mutual
settlement. Pursuant to the same on 29.04.2026, parties were directed to
appear before the Registrar (J-II) for verifying the genuineness and
correctness of the compromise.
6. On 08.05.2026, 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:38:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56528
3 MCRC-16641-2026
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the case of
Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuwanshi & Anr. 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 & Anr. 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- (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.
9. 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/complainant 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.
10. In the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:38:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56528
4 MCRC-16641-2026
“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 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:38:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56528
5 MCRC-16641-2026
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 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.”
11. 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 of each case and no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:38:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:565286 MCRC-16641-2026
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 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.”
12. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:38:28
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56528
7 MCRC-16641-2026
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.
13. 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
the present application and quash the FIR and consequential criminal
proceedings arising out of Crime No.06/2025 registered at P.S. Mahila
Thana, District Betul for commission of offence punishable under Sections
498-A r/w 34 of IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the
basis of compromise so entered into between the parties
13. Petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
mohsin
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHAMMED
MOHSIN QURESHI
Signing time: 28-07-2026
11:38:28
