Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11765
1 MCRC-18746-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 9 th OF JUNE, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 18746 of 2025
SATISH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pramod Kumar Pachori - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Dinesh Savita - Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.
Shri B.K. Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Shri Raj Kumar Gatwar - Advocate for
respondent No.2.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the applicants invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS for
quashing the FIR at Crime No. 45/2025 registered against the applicants at
Police Station Dabra Dehat, District Gwalior for offence punishable under
Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2), 3(5), 309(4) of BNS, under Sections 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Sections 11, 13 of MPDVPK Act.
2. The applicants submit that the parties have agreed to compromise
the matter. They are maintaining good relationship between themselves and
now no further dispute exists between the parties and, therefore, no purpose
would be served by continuing with the prosecution against the applicants.
3. It is further argued that as per prosecution case, the dispute is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11765
2 MCRC-18746-2025
between neighbors and the incident occurred on the spur of moment and it
was sudden quarrel on account of construction of boundary wall of the
temple in the locality. There were no grievous injuries to any of the parties
and the parties being neighbors have settled their differences and to maintain
peace and harmony in the neighborhood, the proceedings be quashed in
terms of compromise.
4. Per contra, counsel for the State argued that the matter includes non-
compoundable offence under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
5. Upon perusal of the documents placed on record, it is evident that in
terms of order dated 29.4.2025 passed by this Court the parties appeared
before the Principal Registrar of this Court and the Principal Registrar of this
Court has recorded statements of the parties. The parties have stated before
the Principal Registrar that they have mutually settled their differences.
6. In view of above, there is no likelihood of conviction in the matter.
The dispute is between the neighbors and occurred on the spur of moment
relating to construction of boundary wall.
7. In similar set of facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
M.Cr.C.No.52714/2024 has quashed the proceedings on the basis of
compromise in a case involving Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and has held as under:
"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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11765
3 MCRC-18746-2025
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."
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11765
4 MCRC-18746-2025
(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. In Yogendra Yadav's case (supra), charges were under Sections
307 & 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11765
5 MCRC-18746-2025
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:-
1 6. 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, 17 and 21 of the
Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11765
6 MCRC-18746-2025
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,
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11765
7 MCRC-18746-2025
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."
8. In view of above, looking to the peculiar facts of the case, nature of
offence and the manner in which the offence has been carried out, in the
opinion of this Court it is a fit case where the FIR can be quashed in terms of
the compromise between the parties. Consequently, the petition stands
allowed and the FIR against the applicants at Crime No..45/2025 stands
quashed in view of compromise.
(VIVEK JAIN)
V. JUDGE
(alok)
