Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepu Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8844
1 MCRC-52714-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 25 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52714 of 2024
DEEPU SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Advocate for the applicants.
Ms. Shanti Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the applicants invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS/482 of
Cr.P.C. for quashing the First Information Report dated 2.11.2024 registered
against the applicants vide Crime No. 855 of 2024 at Police Station Maihar,
District Maihar for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3),
3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)
(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2 . The applicants submits that the parties are agreed to compromise the
matter. They are maintaining good relationship and now no further dispute exists
between the parties. No purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending.
3 . In terms of the order passed by this Court on 21.1.2025, the parties
appeared before the Registrar Judicial - II on 21.1.2025 for verification of their
compromise where their statements have been recorded and the Registrar Judicial -
II vide his report dated 21.1.2025 has verified the compromise entered into
between the parties. It is mentioned in the report that the complainant has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8844
2 MCRC-52714-2024
expressed that he has voluntarily entered into compromise with the applicant with
free will and volition and without any threat and inducement to settle their
disputes.
4. The offence under Section 296 of the BNS, 2023 is non-compoundable.
5. 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 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 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8844
3 MCRC-52714-2024
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.
8. 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 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
noncompoundable. 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."
9 . I n Yogendra Yadav's case (supra), charges were under Sections 307 &
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8844
4 MCRC-52714-2024
326 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.
10. 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 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.''
11. In the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. - (2022) 13 SCC 635 has
observed in Paragraphs 16 and 17 as under:-
16. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8844
5 MCRC-52714-2024
been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional
safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 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.
17. 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 482CrPC.
12. Considering the factum of compromise between the parties and in the light
of the aforesaid judgments, this petition is allowed . In view of the compromise
arrived at between the parties, First Information Report dated 2.11.2024 registered
against the applicants vide Crime No. 855 of 2024 at Police Station Maihar,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:8844
6 MCRC-52714-2024
District Maihar and ensued proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections
296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)
(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act stands
quashed. The applicants are discharged from the aforesaid offences. Bail bonds, if
any, stand discharged.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
