Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Iqbal Hafeez Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20338
1 MCRC-27383-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 1 st OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27383 of 2018
MOHD. IQBAL HAFEEZ KHAN AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Gaurav Tiwari - Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the dispute has
already been resolved between the parties ex curiae and an application
(I.A.No.17846/2022) has been moved under Section 320(2) of CrPC for
compounding the offence and taking the compromise on record.
The said application has been filed with the signature of complainant
and applicants and their respective counsels have also signed the application.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of CrPC seeking to
quash the FIR registered vide Crime No.206/2018 at Police Station
Shahjahanabad, District Bhopal for the offence under Sections 419, 420,
467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC against the applicants. It is alleged that offence
registered on the basis of complaint made by respondent No.2 is nothing but
a counterblast of the mutation proceeding initiated by the applicants by filing
an application under Sections 109 & 110 of M.P.L.R.C. on the basis of will.
But, it is denied that will has never been executed and alleged that same has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20338
2 MCRC-27383-2018
been forged.
It is alleged that the proceeding is of civil nature and criminal
prosecution is nothing but a tool used by respondent No.2 to compel the
applicants for settling the dispute. However, after filing the petition, the
parties have entered into settlement and the application has accordingly been
filed.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and looking to the compromise, I am inclined to allow the
application.
So far as non-compoundable offences are concerned, the Supreme
Court in a case reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 [Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and Anr.] after considering the the provisions of sections 320 and 482
of the CrPC has held that the compounding can he permitted in a non-
compoundable offence also. The 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20338
3 MCRC-27383-2018
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.'
In a subsequent order, passed on 27.03.2014 in Criminal Appeal
No.686/2014 [Narinder Singh and Ors Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.] after
relying on the judgment passed in the case of Gian Singh (supra), the
Supreme Court has permitted the compounding in a non-compoundable
offence and quashed the criminal proceedings.
Likewise, in Criminal Appeal No. 1489/2012 decided on 29.09.2021
parties being Ramgopla & Anr. Vs. State of MP , the Supreme Court in
paragraph-12 has held 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20338
4 MCRC-27383-2018
paralyze the very object of the administration of
criminal justice system.''
In a case reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 [State of M.P. vs. Laxmi
Narayan], a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has discussed the
earlier judgments of the Supreme Court and laid down the principles in
paragraph-15. The relevant paragraphs-15.1 & 15.2 are 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;'
Considering the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration the
settlement between the accused persons and the complainant that they have
amicably settled their dispute, I am of the opinion that no purpose would be
served in continuing the criminal proceedings. It is also seen that most of the
applicants are nonagenarian and suffering from geriatric ailments, therefore,
presence of all the parties is not needed, also because the counsels for the
applicants and the complainant have signed the application and are present in
Court.
In view of the above, this application is allowed. The FIR registered
vide Crime No.206/2018 at Police Station Shahjahanabad, District Bhopal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:20338
5 MCRC-27383-2018
for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC against the
applicants is hereby quashed. Since, the FIR has been quashed by this Court
therefore all consequent proceedings thereto, shall stand quashed.
M.Cr.C. is disposed of.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Sudesh
