[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Rajpoot vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 December, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32733
1 MCRC-52774-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE LOK ADALAT
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
&
SHRI RISHI KUMAR KATARE, ADVOCATE
ON THE 13 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52774 of 2025
ANIL KUMAR RAJPOOT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Vikas Gupta - Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. Mohit Shivhare - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
Ms. Pratiksha Sachan - Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant
ORDER
With consent of the parties, the matter is heard.
By invoking inherent powers of this Court, the present petition has been
preferred by petitioners under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of Cr.P.C. seeking
quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.236/2025 registered at Police Station
Bhander, District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2),
351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(dha), and 3(2)(va) of the
SC/ST Act and other subsequent criminal proceedings initiated therefrom on the
basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
2. Alongwith the petition, both the parties have filed I.A. Nos.24022 &
24024 of 2025 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 dated 20.11.2025 passed by this Court, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32733
2 MCRC-52774-2025
factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court,
who has recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as well as petitioners 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 K.
Bharthi Devi and Another v. State of Telangana and Another , reported in (2024)
10 SCC 384 has held as under:
"33. It could thus be seen that the learned three- Judge Bench of
this Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 held
that B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil
Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma vs. State,
(2008) 16 SCC 1 were correctly decided.
34. It has been held that there are certain offences which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out
of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly
relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute, where the wrong is basically
to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes
between them amicably, the High Court would be justified in quashing
the criminal proceedings, even if the offences have not been made
compoundable."
5. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 after considering the the provisions of Section 320
and 482 of the Cr.P.C held that the compounding can he permitted in a non-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32733
3 MCRC-52774-2025
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32733
4 MCRC-52774-2025
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."
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32733
5 MCRC-52774-2025
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."
9. In the case of Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab and 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.
10. In the cases of Jagdish Channa & others Vs. State of Haryana & another
(AIR 2008 SC 1968), Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 2008 SC
1969) , Shiji Vs. Radhika & 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 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32733
6 MCRC-52774-2025
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.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramavtar V/s State of M.P.
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 has quashed the FIR lodged under the
provisions of SC/ST Act by observing thus in Para Nos.12 to 16:-
"12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the
decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and re-iterate that the
powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a
criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise
between the complainant/victim and the accused.
13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers
under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in
post- conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before
one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an
order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has
exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub-judice
before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be
that may before the final Court, is sine-qua-non to involve the
superior court's plenary powers to do complete justice.
Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of
all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a
compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is
necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite
leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32733
7 MCRC-52774-2025
with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already
clarified that the purpose of these extra-ordinary powers is not to
incentivise any hollow-hearted agreements between the accused
and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine
settlement(s).
14. With respect to the second question before us, it must
be noted that even though the powers of this Court under Article
142are wide and far-reaching, the same cannot be exercised in a
vacuum. True it is that ordinary statutes or any restrictions
contained therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on the
Court's power to do "complete justice". However, this is not to
say that this Court can altogether ignore the statutory provisions
or other express prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated
to take note of the relevant laws and will have to regulate the use
of its power and discretion accordingly. The Constitution Bench
decision in the case of Supreme Court Bar Assn Vs. Union of
India has eloquently clarified this point as follows:
"48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 142 has the power to make such order as is
necessary for doing complete justice "between the parties in
any cause or matter pending before it". The very nature of
the power must lead the Court to set limits for itself within
which to exercise those powers and ordinarily it cannot
disregard a statutory provision governing a subject, except
perhaps to balance the equities between the conflicting
claims of the litigating parties by "ironing out the creases"
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32733
8 MCRC-52774-2025
in a cause or matter before it. Indeed this Court is not a court
of restricted jurisdiction of only dispute- settling. It is well
recognised and established that this Court has always been a
lawmaker and its role travels beyond merely dispute-
settling. It is a "problem- solver in the nebulous areas" (see
K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655 :
1991 SCC (Cri) 734] but the substantive statutory
provisions dealing with the subject-matter of a given case
cannot be altogether ignored by this Court, while making an
order under Article 142. Indeed, these constitutional powers
cannot, in any way, be controlled by any statutory
provisions but at the same time these powers are not meant
to be exercised when their exercise may come directly in
conflict with what has been expressly provided for in a
statute dealing expressly with the subject."
15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of
special statutes such as the SC/ ST Act , the Court will be
extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ ST Act has been
specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and
harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes.. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that
despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various
atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The Courts have to be
mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view
the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32733
9 MCRC-52774-2025
17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of
protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well
as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based
atrocities.
16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that
the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is
primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence
has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or
where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse
of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash
the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for
quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is
satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not
be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes
unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a
'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court,
from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution or Section 482Cr.P.C."
12. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ramavtar (Supra) settle the legal position in so far as, the power of this Court to
quash proceedings of FIR (in exercise of powers contained under Section 482 of
CrPC) is concerned in cases where the parties have entered into a compromise in
the cases involving offences under the provisions of SC/ST Act. The only
question which is required to be borne in mind is that the compromise must be
dealt with free will.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32733
10 MCRC-52774-2025
13. 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.
14. Considering the fact that respondents No.2 and petitioners have
amicably resolved the issue, this Court allows this MCRC with the following
directions:-
i. FIR bearing Crime No.236/2025 registered at Police
Station Bhander, District Datia for the offence punishable under
Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, and Sections
3(1)(d), 3(1)(dha), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act against the
petitioners stands quashed.
ii. All the consequential proceedings flowing out of the said
FIR also stand quashed.
15. Petition stands disposed of. All the pending IAs also stand disposed of.
16. It is made clear that any compensation received by the complainant
should be refunded to the concerned authorities within one month.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) (RISHI KUMAR KATARE)
MEMBER MEMBER
(LJ*)
