Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vijaysingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 August, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17954




                                                             1                          MCRC-28914-2025
                             IN        THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                         BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                 ON THE 18th OF AUGUST, 2025
                                             MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28914 of 2025
                                                VIJAYSINGH AND OTHERS
                                                         Versus
                                       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                  Shri Ravi Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioners.
                                  Shri Mohit Shivhare - Pubic Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
                                  Shri Rajmani Bansal - Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.

                                                                 ORDER

By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has been preferred by petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.9/2025 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road Thana District Gwalior under Sections 125, 296, 351(2), 110, 191(2), 191(3) of BNS.

2. Alongwith the petition, both the parties have filed

I.A.Nos.13525/2025 and 13526/2025 separately 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.

3. In compliance of order passed by this Court, the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, who has recorded the statements of complainant/respondent No.2 as well as

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17954

2 MCRC-28914-2025 petitioners-accused person and has submitted the report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.

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 another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the provisions of Section 320 and 482 of 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 2 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 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 Sectio 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 others Vs.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17954

3 MCRC-28914-2025

State of Punjab and another 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, 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 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 and 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- 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;"

8. In the case of Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr., Criminal

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17954

4 MCRC-28914-2025 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.

9. In the cases of Jagdish Channa and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (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 & others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Anita Maria Dias and Another vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 290, 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.

10. In the case of Kapil Gupta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in (2022) 15 SCC 44 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

12. It can thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that though the Court should be slow in

quashing the proceedings wherein heinous and serious offences are involved, the High Court is

not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an

offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the

charge for the offence charged with. The Court has also to take into consideration as to whether

the settlement between the parties is going to result into harmony between them which may

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17954

5 MCRC-28914-2025 improve their mutual relationship.

11. 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.

12. Considering the fact that respondent No. 2 complainant and petitioners- accused persons have amicably resolved the issue, this Court allows this MCRC with the following directions:-

(i) FIR bearing Crime No.9/2025 registered at Police Station Jhansi Road Thana District Gwalior under Sections 125, 296, 351(2), 110, 191(2), 191(3) of BNS against the petitioners is hereby quashed.