[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70325
1 MCRC-56670-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 19th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 56670 of 2025
AMIT SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yagyavalk Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Sheersh Agrawal - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)
has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR bearing Crime
No.251/2024, dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure-P/4), at Police Station-Rangnath
Nagar, District-Katni and charge-sheet dated 15.09.2025 ( Annexure-P/6),
under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC as well as quashing of all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2 . As per the prosecution story, petitioner has issued a cheque for an
amount of Rs.11,81,444/- of his bank acccount; however, same was
dishonoured on the ground that the said amount is not in existence with the
bank. Hence, the FIR was registered against the petitioner.
3 . It is submitted by both the parties that during pendencey of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70325
2 MCRC-56670-2025
case, they have settled their dispute amicably. This Court, vide order dated
11.12.2025, directed the Registrar (Judicial-II) of this Court for verification
of the compromise entered between the petitioner and
complainant/respondent no.2.
4. As per the verification report dated 15.12.2025, both the parties
have settled their dispute amicably with free will and volition and without
any threat and inducement.
5. Counsel for the parties submit that the matter has been
compromised and dispute between the parties has amicably settled and now,
no dispute remains between them. The complainant does not want to
prosecute the petitioner further.
6 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
7 . On perusal of report dated 15.12.2025, it reveals that parities have
amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. Offence
under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are compoundable in nature with
permission of the Court and offence under Section 467, 468, 471 of IPC are
non-compoundable in nature.
8 . 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 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 reads as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70325
3 MCRC-56670-2025
"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 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."
9 . 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70325
4 MCRC-56670-2025
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
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."
10. In Yogendra Yadav's case (supra), charges were under Sections
307 & 326 of 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.
11. 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 para12 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70325
5 MCRC-56670-2025
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.''
12. On this aspect, the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in
Jagdish Chanana and others vs. State of Haryana and Another [(2008) 15
SCC 704], is also worth to mention here. It is held that in the cases where
offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469, 471, 472, 474 r/w 34 of IPC
are attracted, the FIR can be quashed under Section 482 r/w Section 320 of
Cr.P.C. The observations are reproduced here as under:-
"2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24th July 2006 rejecting
the prayer for quashing of FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City
Sonepat registered under Sections 419,420,465,468,469,471,472,474 read
with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. During the pendency of these proceedings in this Court,
Crl.Misc.Petition No. 42/2008 has been filed putting on record a
compromise deed dated 30th April 2007. The fact that a compromise has
indeed been recorded is admitted by all sides and in terms of the
compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out
of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise
with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in
court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be.
3. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution
will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely
personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had
been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings,
therefore, would be a futile exercise. We accordingly allow the appeal and
quash FIR No.83 dated 12th March 2005 P.S. City Sonepat and all
consequent proceedings."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70325
6 MCRC-56670-2025
13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs.
Sadhu Ram Singh & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 350, while considering the exercise
of inherent powers under Section 482 and 320 of Cr.P.C., has upheld the
quashment of non- compoundable offences, pursuant to settlement arrived at
by the parties, holding that exercise of judicial restraint vis-a-vis continuance
of criminal proceedings after compromise arrived at between the parties, may
amount to abuse of process of Court and futile exercise. Taking into account
the law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, as the
compromise between the parties was arrived at between the parties, thus
continuation of the prosecution in such matters will be a futile exercise,
which will serve no purpose. Under such a situation, Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. can be justifiably invoked to prevent abuse of process of law and
wasteful exercise by the Courts below. More so, offence in question are not
against the society, but merely affect the victim.
14. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, the facts of the present case
are examined. The offences as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs has
been registered on complaint filed by the respondent No.2. The matter is said
to be compromised between the parties and dispute has been amicably
settled. The alleged offences do not fall within the exception carved out by
the apex court in the aforesaid judgments.
15. From the aforesaid, it appears that the petitioner and the respondent
No.2 have amicably settled their dispute and on the factum of compromise,
the petitioner prays for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No.251/2024, dated
03.09.2024 (Annexure-P/4), at Police Station-Rangnath Nagar, District-Katni
and charge-sheet dated 15.09.2025 (Annexure-P/6), under Sections 406, 420,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:70325
7 MCRC-56670-2025
467, 468, 471 of IPC as well as all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
16. In view of the aforesaid compromise arrived at between the parties and
in the light of the judgment of Hon'bler Supreme Court in the case of B.S.
Joshi Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 &
Jagdish Chanana (supra) and upon consideration of the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for parties, this Court accepts the prayer for
quashment of the FIR as well as all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
17. Accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No.251/2024, dated 03.09.2024
(Annexure-P/4), at Police Station-Rangnath Nagar, District-Katni and
charge-sheet dated 15.09.2025 (Annexure-P/6), under Sections 406, 420,
467, 468, 471 of IPC as well as all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed.
18. With the aforesaid, this petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973) stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish
