Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nitin Bhoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2025

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21056




                                                             1                             MCRC-52369-2024
                            IN     THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                                  ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2025
                                          MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52369 of 2024
                                                   NITIN BHOJ
                                                     Versus
                                    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                         Appearance:
                           Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for the applicant.
                           Shri D.R. Vishwakarma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

                           Shri Pankaj Dubey - Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.

                                                                 ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 582 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) / 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of FIR registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.509/2022 at Police Station Kotwali Balaghat, District Balaghat, for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 386, 389, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner and the complainant have jointly filed applications

viz. I.A. Nos.31706/2024 and 31709/2024, under Section 320(5) r.w. 320(2) of BNSS seeking leave of the court to compound the offence and also for compromise respectively along with their affidavits mentioning therein that they have entered into compromise and settled their dispute ex curia. The statement of parties has also been recorded before the Registrar, which is available on record. The complainant/Ashish @ Happy Somani (respondent

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21056

2 MCRC-52369-2024 No.2 herein), in his statement has very categorically stated that he entered into a settlement with the petitioner/accused without any fear and pressure and he does not want to prosecute the matter against the petitioner.

3. However, the counsel for the State has raised an objection saying that the offence registered against the petitioner since not included in the list provided under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., therefore, it is not compoundable.

4. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. 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 Cr.P.C. has 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21056

3 MCRC-52369-2024 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, 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 case and quashed the criminal proceedings.

7. In the case arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1132-1155 of 2022 [Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat], the Supreme Court has 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21056

4 MCRC-52369-2024 its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings.

8. Similarly, in a case reported in AIR 2015 SC (Criminal) 166 [Yogendra Yadav & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.] , the Supreme Court has 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 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.'

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21056

5 MCRC-52369-2024

9. In case of Yogendra Yadav (supra), charges were under Sections 307 & 326 IPC. The Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court could have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC 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. 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 paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system.''

11. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21056

6 MCRC-52369-2024 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;'

12. In SLP (Crl.) No.7072 of 2021 [Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr.], decided on 20.10.2021, the Supreme Court has held in paragraph-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.

13. Considering the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration the settlement between the accused persons and the complainant that they have amicably settled their dispute and are leading peaceful life, I am of the opinion that no purpose would be served in continuing the criminal proceedings.

14. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Resultantly, the FIR registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.509/2022 at Police Station Kotwali Balaghat, District Balaghat, for the offence punishable under

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:21056

7 MCRC-52369-2024

Sections 384, 386, 389, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed.